Public Review Draft

PV PENINSULA WATER RELIABILITY PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Prepared for November 2017 City of Rolling Hills Estates

Public Review Draft

PV PENINSULA WATER RELIABILITY PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Prepared for November 2017 City of Rolling Hills Estates 4045 Palos Verdes Drive North Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 Contact: Jeannie Naughton, AICP

2121 Alton Parkway Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92606 949.753.7001 www.pcrnet.com

Irvine Sacramento Los Angeles San Diego Oakland San Francisco Orlando Santa Monica Pasadena Seattle Petaluma Tampa Portland Woodland Hills

DPCIB03.EP

Table of Contents

Page

CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST ...... IS‐1

ATTACHMENT A ‐ PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... A‐1 A. Introduction ...... A‐1 B. Project Location and Surrounding Uses ...... A‐1 C. Environmental Setting ...... A‐1 D. Land Use and Zoning Designations...... A‐6 E. Description of the Proposed Project ...... A‐6 F. Construction Approach and Schedule ...... A‐14 G. Necessary Approvals ...... A‐17

ATTACHMENT B ‐ EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST DETERMINATIONS ...... B‐1 I. Aesthetics ...... B‐1 II. Agriculture and forestry Resources ...... B‐8 III. Air Quality ...... B‐10 IV. Biological Resources ...... B‐21 V. Cultural Resources ...... B‐57 VI. Geology and Soils ...... B‐63 VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...... B‐68 VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...... B‐73 IX. Hydrology and Water Quality ...... B‐78 X. Land Use and Planning ...... B‐82 XI. Mineral Resources ...... B‐84 XII. Noise ...... B‐85 XIII. Population and Housing ...... B‐106 XIV. Public Services ...... B‐107 XV. Recreation ...... B‐111 XVI. Transportation/Traffic ...... B‐112 XVII. Tribal Cultural Resources ...... B‐116 XVIII. Utilities and Service Systems ...... B‐117 XIX. Mandatory Findings of Significance ...... B‐119 Appendices

Appendix A – Air Quality Data

Appendix B – Biological Resources Assessment

Appendix C – Cultural Resources Assessment

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA i

Table of Contents (Continued)

Page

Appendix D – Preliminary Geotechnical Report

Appendix E – Greenhouse Gas Data

Appendix F‐1 – Phase I Environmental Site Assessment

Appendix F‐2 – Envirostor Database Search Results

Appendix G‐1 – Construction Noise Data

Appendix G‐2 – Generator Noise Technical Memorandum

Appendix H – Native American Consultation Materials

Appendix I – Related Projects Data

List of Figures

Figure Page

A‐1 Regional Location and Project Vicinity Map ...... A‐2 A‐2 Proposed Alignment and Surrounding Uses ...... A‐3 A‐3 Existing Water Distribution Facilities ...... A‐5 A‐4 Proposed Water System Components ...... A‐7 A‐5 Typical Pipeline Segment ...... A‐8 A‐6 Pipeline Alignment ‐ Montecillo Drive to Ball Fields ...... A‐9 A‐7 Pipeline Alignment ‐ SCBG to Crenshaw Boulevard ...... A‐10 A‐8 Pipeline Alignment ‐ Crenshaw Boulevard to Crest Road ...... A‐11 A‐9 Pump Station Site Plan ...... A‐13 B‐1 Simulation 1 ‐ View Southwest from Crenshaw Boulevard ...... B‐4 B‐2 Simulation 2 ‐ View Northwest from Sunnyridge Road ...... B‐5 B‐3 Simulation 3 – View North from Southbound Crenshaw Boulevard ...... B‐6 B‐4 USFWS Critical Habitat ...... B‐35 B‐5 Impacts to USFWS Critical Habitat ...... B‐41 B‐6A Impacts to Plant Communities ...... B‐45 B‐6B Impacts to Plant Communities ...... B‐46 B‐7A Impacts to Jurisdictional Features ...... B‐48 B‐7B Impacts to Jurisdictional Features ...... B‐49 B‐7C Impacts to Jurisdictional Features ...... B‐50 B‐7D Impacts to Jurisdictional Features ...... B‐51 B‐8 Noise Measurement Location and Noise Sensitive Receivers ...... B‐93 B‐9 Generator Noise Contour Map ...... B‐100

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA ii

List of Tables

Table Page

B‐1 Estimated Construction Schedule ...... B‐13 B‐2 Construction Equipment Assumptions ...... B‐13 B‐3 Unmitigated Maximum Daily Regional Construction Emissions ...... B‐14 B‐4 Mitigated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions ...... B‐15 B‐5 Unmitigated Maximum Daily Localized Construction Emissions ...... B‐18 B‐6 Mitigated Maximum Daily Localized Construction Emissions ...... B‐18 B‐7 Plant Communities...... B‐22 B‐8 Jurisdictional Features ...... B‐29 B‐9 Impacts to Plant Communities ...... B‐44 B‐10 Proposed Impacts and Avoidance of CDFW Jurisdictional Features ...... B‐47 B‐11 Proposed Impacts and Avoidance of USACE/RWQCB Jurisdictional Features ...... B‐52 B‐12 Annual Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...... B‐71 B‐13 Los Angeles County Presumed Ambient Noise Levels ...... B‐87 B‐14 Los Angeles County Permissible Construction Equipment Noise at Receptor ...... B‐88 B‐15 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Sources ...... B‐94 B‐16 Construction Equipment and Estimated Noise Levels ...... B‐95 B‐17 Estimated Construction Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptors ...... B‐96

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA iii

Initial Study Checklist

California Environmental Quality Act

Initial Study (as required by Sec. 15063 of the Public Resources Code)

1. Project Title: PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rolling Hills Estates 4045 Palos Verdes Drive North Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Jeannie Naughton, AICP Senior Planner City of Rolling Hills Estates (310) 377-1577

4. Project Location: The Project site consists of various public street rights-of-way, utility easements, bridle trails, and other public and private property along an approximately 7-mile alignment on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, which includes portions of the Cities of Rolling Hills Estates and Rancho Palos Verdes, as well as unincorporated portions of the County of Los Angeles.

5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: California Water Service 2632 W. 237th Street Torrance, CA 90505

6. General Plan Designation: Numerous (varies by location)

7. Zoning: Numerous (varies by location)

8. Description of Project: The California Water Service (Cal Water), the water service provider for the project area, proposes the PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project (the Project) on the Palos Verdes Peninsula in order to replace existing facilities that have reached their service life. The Project will consist of approximately 7 miles of 24-inch and 30-inch buried potable water pipeline and a new pump station.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: The Project site is generally bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and south, Western Avenue to the east, and Pacific Coast Highway (State Route 1) to the north.

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement).

 City of Rolling Hills Estates – Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration, Conditional Use Permit and Variances (Pump Station), encroachment, building, and other permits for various facilities within the City, as well as any necessary easement(s) for construction of proposed facilities on City property

 City of Rancho Palos Verdes - Encroachment, building, and other permits for various facilities within the City, as well as any necessary easement(s) for construction of proposed facilities on City property

 United State Army Corps of Engineers - Section 404 Permit

 California Department of Fish and Wildlife - Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement

 State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water - Permit to construct and operate public drinking water facilities

 California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control – Approval of Site Health and Safety Plan for excavation and construction activities in proximity to former landfill area at South Coast Botanic Garden

 Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board - Section 401 Water Quality Certification

 County of Los Angeles - Encroachment, building, flood control connection, and other permits for various facilities within unincorporated Los Angeles County, as well as any necessary easement(s) for construction of proposed facilities on County property

 Other permits and approvals as needed

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun?

The City of Rolling Hills Estates mailed out formal AB 52 Consultation Request letters to affected tribal groups in the project area on March 23, 2017. One request for formal government-to-government consultation was received by these tribes within the stated 30-day consultation request period. As such, the City has initiated formal consultation with the affected tribe in accordance with AB 52.

Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code section 21083.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.

IS-2

PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY

The proposed PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project is analyzed in this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), to determine if approval of the Project would have a significant impact on the environment. This IS/MND has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the CEQA, under Public Resources Code 21000-21177, of the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000-15387) and under the guidance of the City of Rolling Hills Estates in consultation with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the County of Los Angeles. The City of Rolling Hills Estates is the Lead Agency under CEQA and is responsible for preparing the IS/MND for the Project.

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

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

 Aesthetics  Agriculture Resources  Air Quality  Biological Resources  Cultural Resources  Geology / Soils  Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Hazards & Hazardous Materials  Hydrology / Water Quality  Land Use / Planning  Mineral Resources  Noise  Population / Housing  Public Services  Recreation  Transportation / Traffic  Tribal Cultural Resources  Utilities / Service Systems  Mandatory Findings of Significance

IS-3

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 2) A list of “Supporting Information Sources” should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 3) Impact Columns Heading Definitions: a) “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. b) “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The mitigation measures must be described, along with a brief explanation of how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. c) “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where the project creates no significant impacts, only Less Than Significant impacts. d) “No Impact” applies where a project does not create an impact in that category. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one proposed (e.g., the project falls outside of a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 4) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 5) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 6) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and

b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. IS-5

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant I. AESTHETICS – Would the project: Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?     b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?     c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?     d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?    

II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Less Than Project; and forest carbon measurement methodology Significant Potentially With Less Than provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Significant Mitigation Significant Resources Board. Would the project: Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact a) Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the farmland mapping and monitoring program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?     b)Conflict the existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?     c)Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 1220(g)), timberland (as defined by public resources code section 4526), or timberland zoned timberland production (as defined by government code section 51104(g))?     d)Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?     e)Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland, to non-agricultural use?    

Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact IS-6

III. AIR QUALITY – Where available, the significance Significant Significant Significant criteria established by the applicable air quality management Impact With Impact Mitigation or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make Incorporation the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?     b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?     c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?     d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?     e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?    

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project: Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?     b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?     c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?     d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?     e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?    

IS-7

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project: Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?    

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant V. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project: Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?     b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?     c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?     d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?    

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the project: Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

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

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?    

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?    

iv) Landslides?     b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?     c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?    

IS-8

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the project: Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?     e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?    

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the Significant Mitigation Significant project: Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?     b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?    

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – Significant Mitigation Significant Would the project: Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?     b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?     c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?     d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?     e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?    

IS-9

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – Significant Mitigation Significant Would the project: Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?     g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?     h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?    

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the Significant Mitigation Significant project: Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?     b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?     c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?     d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?     e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?     f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?    

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

IS-10

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the Significant Mitigation Significant project: Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?     i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?     j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?    

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant X. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project: Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community?     b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?     c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?    

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant XI. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?     b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?    

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant XII. NOISE – Would the project result in: Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?     b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?    

IS-11

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant XII. NOISE – Would the project result in: Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?     d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity due to construction activities above levels existing without the project?     e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?     f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?    

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the project: Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?     b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?     c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?    

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection?    

Police protection?    

IS-12

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact

Schools?    

Parks?    

Other public facilities?    

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant XV. RECREATION Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?     b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?    

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC – Would the project: Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?     b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?     c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?     d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?     e) Result in inadequate emergency access?     f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?    

IS-13

Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or     b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.    

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than XVIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would Significant Mitigation Significant the project: Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?     b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?     c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?     d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?     e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?     f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?     g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?    

IS-14

Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant XIX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?     b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?     c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?    

IS-15

Attachment A Project Description

ATTACHMENT A ‐ PROJECT DESCRIPTION

A. INTRODUCTION The California Water Service Company (“Cal Water”) is proposing to construct new potable water pipelines and a new booster pump station to replace the current water distribution system serving the Palos Verdes Peninsula, which has reached its useful service life, and improve overall system reliability. The PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project (“the Project”) involves the construction of approximately seven (7) miles of 24‐ inch and 30‐inch pipelines within portions of the Cities of Rolling Hills Estates and Rancho Palos Verdes and portions of unincorporated Los Angeles County. The following provides a discussion of the Project site location, existing conditions in the Project area, Project background, characteristics of the Project, and necessary approvals required to implement the Project.

B. PROJECT LOCATION AND SURROUNDING USES The Project site consists of various public street rights‐of‐way, utility easements, bridle trails, and other public and private property along an approximately 7‐mile alignment on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, which includes portions of the Cities of Rolling Hills Estates and Rancho Palos Verdes, as well as unincorporated portions of the County of Los Angeles. The Project site is generally bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and south, Western Avenue to the east, and Pacific Coast Highway (State Route 1) to the north. The location of the Project site is illustrated in Figure A‐1, Regional Location and Vicinity Map, below, while an aerial photograph of the proposed alignment with surrounding land uses is provided below in Figure A‐2, Proposed Alignment and Surrounding Uses.

C. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 1. Project Background In 2002, Cal Water commissioned a Water System Master Plan (“Master Plan”) for the Palos Verdes Peninsula water system. The Master Plan identified the high‐priority need to augment the existing potable water system with new transmission mains and a new pump station to improve the capacity and reliability of the water system. The resulting project is the currently proposed Project. Currently, a single pipeline that is nearly 60 years old delivers potable water to approximately 90 percent of the Peninsula, and a second pipeline of the same age delivers water to the remaining 10 percent. Both of these pipelines are approaching the end of their useful lives. If either of these pipelines were to leak or break due to age, natural disaster, or other catastrophe, residents could face serious water service outages. The Palos Verdes Peninsula water system is also vulnerable to extended power outages, fire, or other catastrophes because electricity is required to pump water through these pipelines to the various elevations on the Peninsula.

Additionally, a section of pipeline that was installed prior to major development on the Peninsula is located dangerously close to and possibly under homes and other structures. Access to this pipeline for repairs and maintenance is difficult and nearly impossible in some locations. Most importantly, if a leak were to occur on this pipeline, there is great risk of damage to, or even loss of, private property.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA A‐1 Metro Expo Line

Project Site

0 10 Project Site N Miles Path:E:\GIS_ACTIVE\Cal_Water_Palos_Verdes\Projects\2017 -Project Description\F A-1 -Regional ig Location and VicinityMap -8x11 -03-30-17.mxd, sgeissler 3/30/2017

SOURCE: Open Street Map, 2016. PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project

Figure A-1 Regional Location and Vicinity Map DPCIR01.EP

SOURCE: Black & Veatch, 2017 PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project Figure A-2 Proposed Alignment and Surrounding Uses Attachment A Project Description November2017

The Project is a necessary upgrade to the Palos Verdes Peninsula’s infrastructure that would address these risks. It would increase water service reliability, improve operational efficiency, enhance fire protection capabilities, and reduce the risk of loss and damage to property in the event of an emergency.

2. Existing Water System Overview Cal Water’s Palos Verdes Peninsula water system provides service to the entire Palos Verdes Peninsula, covering an area of approximately 26 square miles ranging in elevations from sea level to 1,465 feet. This complex water system is comprised of 109 pressure zones and hundreds of pressure‐reducing valves to deliver water in this range of elevations. The Palos Verdes Peninsula water system distributes potable water to the Peninsula through two distinct water distribution systems: the D‐500 System and Crenshaw/Ridge System. The D‐500 System serves the lower elevation areas of the Peninsula, which accounts for about 13 percent of the Peninsula’s total potable water demand, while the Ridge System serves the upper elevation areas, which accounts for the remaining 87 percent of the demand. Please see Figure A‐3, Existing Water Distribution Facilities, below, for an illustration of the existing D‐500 and Ridge system components.

The average‐day demand and maximum‐day demand of the D‐500 and Ridge systems combined is 15,300 gallons per minute (gpm) and 22,900 gpm, respectively. All of the water supplied to the Peninsula is purchased from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (“MWD”) through the West Basin Municipal Water District (“West Basin”) and delivered through four connections located at the northeast edge of the Peninsula.

a. D‐500 System The D‐500 System utilizes a series of transmission mains, pump stations, and reservoirs to deliver potable water to the lower elevation areas along the Peninsula’s western coast. This system’s supply comes from a single West Basin connection at the base of the Peninsula, in the area of Palos Verdes Drive North and Monticello Drive. The transmission main that connects to the D‐500 System is located within an easement and follows an east‐west alignment along the base of the Peninsula. Refer to Figure A‐3 below for the location of existing D‐500 system facilities. Over time, developments have constructed homes in close proximity to the existing main, which severely limits Cal Water’s ability to perform repairs or maintenance in certain areas.

b. Ridge System The Ridge System utilizes a series of existing transmission mains, pump stations, and reservoirs to supply potable water to the upper elevation areas of the Peninsula. Water for the Ridge System comes from three West Basin connections at the base of the Peninsula, in the area of Palos Verdes Drive North and Monticello Drive. Refer to Figure A‐3 below for the location of existing Ridge system facilities. Purchased water is pumped through a 33‐inch and a 24‐inch pipeline to Colt Road and Palos Verdes Drive East and then through a single 33‐inch pipeline from this point to a storage tank set midway up the hill. Water from this tank is pumped to the highest reservoir in Cal Water’s system through a single 27‐inch pipeline. This single 27‐inch pipeline follows a cross‐country alignment in a generally east‐west orientation through areas classified as historic landslide zones. From the highest reservoir, water is gravity‐fed back down the hill to serve the Ridge system.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA A‐4 01800 N Feet DPCIR01.EP

SOURCE: Black & Veatch, 2017 PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project Figure A-3 Existing Water Distribution Facilities Attachment A Project Description November2017

D. LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS The Project site includes the entire proposed pipeline alignment and booster pump station site along Crenshaw Boulevard, which includes various public street rights‐of‐way, public utility easements, bridle trails, a public elementary school property, part of the Los Angeles County South Coast Botanic Garden property, and other public and private property within portions of the City of Rolling Hills Estates, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and unincorporated County of Los Angeles through which the proposed alignment traverses. While the General Plan land use designations and zoning designations within the Project site vary substantially, it is important to note that the proposed pipeline and booster pump station, once constructed, would operate passively and would not have any effect on existing land use or zoning designations.

E. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

1. Project Components The Project consists of approximately seven (7) miles of 24‐inch and 30‐inch buried potable water pipeline and a new pump station. Figure A‐4, Proposed Water System Components, below, illustrates the location of the various Project components within each affected jurisdiction. The majority of construction activities are planned to take place within the City of Rolling Hills Estates, including parallel construction of the 24‐ and 30‐inch pipelines and the booster pump station. Project activities within unincorporated Los Angeles County portions of the Project site includes parallel 24‐ and 30‐inch pipeline construction through the southernmost part of the South Coast Botanic Garden property and construction of a section of 30‐inch pipeline within Crenshaw Boulevard. Activities within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes include construction of a section of 24‐inch pipeline within Crenshaw Boulevard. A typical pipeline segment to be installed using open trench construction techniques, as proposed under the Project, is illustrated below in Figure A‐5, Typical Pipeline Segment. The following describes the Project components in greater detail.

a. Crenshaw/Ridge System Upgrade This component of the Project would provide a redundant path to convey water from Cal Water’s 850 pressure zone (Ridge system) to the highest reservoir in the system, and would include the following improvements (refer to Figure A‐4 for an illustration of proposed improvements):

1. New 30‐inch Pipeline: A new potable water pipeline would connect to an existing 33‐inch pipeline in Palos Verdes Drive North, just west of Palos Verdes Drive East. An aerial photo of the proposed pipeline segment in this location, including the connection point, is provided below in Figure A‐6, Pipeline Alignment ‐ Montecillo Drive to Ball Fields. As illustrated in Figure A‐6, it would continue west along Palos Verdes Drive North to the entrance of Dapplegray Elementary School, where it turns north along the school’s driveway and down to the Rolling Hills Little League ball fields. Next, as shown below in Figure A‐7, Pipeline Alignment ‐ SCBG to Crenshaw Boulevard, it would continue west along the bridle trail, turn north on Rolling Hills Road for a short length, turn west through the South Coast Botanic Garden, then shift to the west approximately 100 feet onto the Rolling Hills United Methodist Church (RHUMC) parking lot, and continue approximately 500 feet in a northwesterly direction onto Crenshaw Boulevard. The pipeline would then turn south along Crenshaw Boulevard until it connects to a new pump station (described below) located just to the northeast of Silver Spur Road, as illustrated below in Figure A‐8, Pipeline Alignment ‐ Crenshaw Boulevard to Crest Road.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA A‐6 PROJECT LAYDOWN AREA

SOUTH COAST BOTANIC GARDEN

BLVD WEST BASIN CRENSHAW BRIDLE TRAIL CONNECTION 20" D-500 SYSTEM

PALOS VERDES DR N DR E

PUMP BLVD STATIONS PROJECT 15 AND 22 LAYDOWN NEW 30" AREA PALOS VERDES RIDGE SYSTEM

NEW PUMP STATION CRENSHAW NEW 24" PS 53 D-500 SYSTEM WEST BASIN CONNECTIONS SILVER SPUR RD DAPPLEGRAY PV MWD RES INDIAN PEAK RD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

PUMP STATION 30 33" CRESTRIDGE RD RIDGE SYSTEM

NEW 24" RIDGE SYSTEM 24" RIDGE SYSTEM

RESERVOIR 25 CREST RD

27"

RESERVOIR 19 AND PUMP STATION 23

RESERVOIR 20

01800 N Feet DPCIR01.EP

SOURCE: Black & Veatch, 2017 PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project Figure A-4 Proposed Water System Components DPCIR01.EP

SOURCE: Black & Veatch, 2017 PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project Figure A-5 Typical Pipeline Segment Cross Section MATCHLINESEE NEXT

NEW 30"

NEW 30"

CONNECT TO EXIST 24" DAPPLEGRAY ELEMENTARY PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST SCHOOL

STRAWBERRY LANE

CASABA ROAD MONTECILLO DRIVE NEW 30" CONNECT TO EXIST 33"

PALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH

DAPPLEGRAY LANE NEW 24" HITCHING POST DRIVE

CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE PV PENINSULA WATER RELIABILITY PROJECT PIPELINE ALIGNMENT - 1 DPCIR01.EP

SOURCE: Black & Veatch, 2017 PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project Figure A-6 Pipeline Alignment - Montecillo Drive to Ball Fields MATCHLINE SEE PREVIOUS

CRENSHAW BOULEVARD

NEW 30"

LARIAT LANE

SOUTH COAST BOTANIC GARDENS CONNECT TO EXIST 20" NEW 24"

ROLLING HILLS ROAD

PALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH

NEW 30"

CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE PV PENINSULA WATER RELIABILITY PROJECT MATCHLINE SEE NEXT PIPELINE ALIGNMENT - 2 DPCIR01.EP

SOURCE: Black & Veatch, 2017 PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project Figure A-7 Pipeline Alignment - SCBG to Crenshaw Boulevard

CRESTRIDGE ROAD INDIAN PEAK ROAD PEAK INDIAN

MATCHLINE SEE PREVIOUS

PUMP STATION SITE (SEE ENLARGED) NEW 30"

CRENSHAW BOULEVARD

CONNECT TO EXIST 27" ROAD SPUR SILVER

NEW 24" CREST ROAD

CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE PV PENINSULA WATER RELIABILITY PROJECT PIPELINE ALIGNMENT - 3 DPCIR01.EP

SOURCE: Black & Veatch, 2017 PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project Figure A-8 Pipeline Alignment - Crenshaw Boulevard to Crest Road Attachment A Project Description November2017

2. New Pump Station: A new pump station would be constructed along the west side of Crenshaw Boulevard between the existing curb and adjacent hillside, approximately 800 feet north of Silver Spur Road. This pump station would receive potable water from the new 30‐inch pipeline (described above) and pump it through a new 24‐inch pipeline (described below) and an existing 27‐inch pipeline to the existing reservoir, located at the highest point in the water system. The site plan for the proposed pump station is illustrated below in Figure A‐9, Pump Station Site Plan. The station would have three (3), 3,500‐gpm vertical turbine pumps and a 1,500‐gpm vertical turbine pump. The pump station would be a single story building with a footprint of approximately 1,800 square feet. The pump station would sit on a half‐acre graded and paved site with a 200‐foot‐long and 15‐foot‐wide paved driveway that connects it to Crenshaw Boulevard, and would include shoulder striping for a dedicated right turn pocket to provide adequate stopping site distance and ensure vehicular safety. It would be raised above the grade of Crenshaw Boulevard between six and ten feet (i.e., 6 to 10 feet above existing grade) to avoid further excavation into the hillside. The station would include two retaining walls with varying heights and a six‐ to eight‐foot‐high rockfall protection system further up the hill behind one of the retaining walls.

Site drainage would be collected with new storm drains and stormwater would be conveyed to an existing Los Angeles County storm drain in Crenshaw Boulevard. Flows generated on the adjacent hillside and on the pump station site itself would be collected, treated, and managed to comply with County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works’ Low Impact Development (LID) Standards. The pump station would be required to comply with all applicable County LID stormwater requirements, which require, among other things, that the Project result in no net increase in stormwater flows leaving the Project Site compared to pre‐Project conditions. Specifically, the pump station site would implement a number of design features for on‐site retention, as well as Best Management Practices (BMPs) per a Project‐specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) approved by the RWQCB to address water quality, which would ensure that stormwater flows entering the off‐site storm drain system do not exceed pre‐Project flows and that stormwater leaving the site does not contain substantial amounts of contaminants. Various stormwater facilities and/or design features would be incorporated into the pump station design in order to manage stormwater, which are anticipated to include (1) pervious paving systems for all flat areas of the site adjacent to the pump station building in order to facilitate infiltration and reduce flow volumes generated on‐site; (2) stormwater runoff would be collected and routed to detention basins to provide additional infiltration/treatment and limit rate of flow leaving site; (3) a below‐grade infiltration system would be installed at the easterly end of the site to provide additional infiltration capacity in that area; and (4) if warranted, a hydrodynamic separator (continuous deflection system [CDS] unit or similar) may be installed to provide additional treatment capability.

3. New 24‐inch Pipeline: A new potable water pipeline would connect to the new pump station (described above) and travel southwest along Crenshaw Boulevard to an existing 27‐inch main at the intersection of Crenshaw Boulevard and Crest Road, which is illustrated above in Figure A‐8. Additionally, a parallel 12‐inch main to be installed from the new pump station (1,500‐gpm pump stated above) to tie‐into the existing system at Silver Spur Road or approximately 1,200 linear feet, to directly feed the adjacent zone.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA A‐12 ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT PUMP STATION

GENERATOR

NEW 24"

NEW 30"

CRENSHAW BOULEVARD

CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE PV PENINSULA WATER RELIABILITY PROJECT PUMP STATION DPCIR01.EP

SOURCE: Black & Veatch, 2017 PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project Figure A-9 Pump Station Site Plan Attachment A Project Description November2017

b. D‐500 System Upgrade This component of the Project would increase the reliability of the D‐500 System by improving access to the pipeline for repairs and maintenance, would reduce the risk of property damage by relocating a portion of the water main, and would include the following improvements:

1. New 24‐inch Pipeline: A new potable water pipeline would connect to an existing 24‐inch pipeline in Montecillo Drive just north of Palos Verdes Drive North, as illustrated above in Figure A‐6. As also depicted in Figure A‐6, it would continue south along Montecillo Drive and turn west onto Palos Verdes Drive North. Approximately 200 feet west of Palos Verdes Drive East, this new pipeline would begin to run parallel to the new 30‐inch water pipeline (described for the Ridge system above) until it connects to an existing 20‐inch pipeline in Crenshaw Boulevard, as shown above in Figure A‐7. Refer to Figure A‐5 for an illustration of a typical pipeline segment.

F. CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE AND APPROACH 1. Construction Schedule and Phasing Cal Water estimates that the construction of the Project will take approximately two years, with construction expected to start in mid‐2018 and be complete by the end of 2019. The Project will be broken up into phases to minimize traffic impacts and inconvenience to residents, and activities would be timed to avoid peak traffic hours throughout the construction effort.

2. Construction Hours Construction activities are normally expected to occur Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., with some construction activities potentially occurring between the same hours on weekends. However, it is possible in some areas where traffic capacity is more limited or heavy peak hour traffic is expected to occur, that more restrictive work hours within street rights‐of‐way may be required. In addition, in order to minimize the overall duration of construction activities and associated temporary traffic impacts for pipeline segments on Palos Verdes Drive North between Montecillo Drive and Dapplegray Elementary School, the applicant proposes expanded construction hours. Specifically, for work within this portion of the proposed alignment, the City would allow (per a variance)1 the expanded construction hours of 7 a.m. to 12 a.m. Monday through Friday and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturdays until this segment is completed. In addition, tie‐in connections located at Crenshaw Boulevard and Crest Road, at Montecillo Drive just north of Palos Verdes Drive North, and at Crenshaw Boulevard near the South Coast Botanic Garden may require closure of some lane segments or portions of intersections during the nighttime hours in order to avoid traffic disruptions during the day. Lastly, construction hours for pipeline segments on the RHUMC property and in proximity to the Country Day School campus would be limited to 8 p.m. to 4 a.m. in order to avoid disruptions to noise‐ sensitive activities, including schools, that occur during daylight hours.

1 Per Section 8.32.210 of the Rolling Hills Estates Municipal Code, “[a] variance shall be required for any type of construction which will violate the noise standards set forth in Sections 8.32.050, 8.32.060, or 8.32.070.”

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA A‐14 November 2017 Attachment A Project Description

3. Construction Methods and Assumptions a. Pipeline Segments Most of the construction activities required for the Project (aside from pump station construction) involve open trench pipeline construction methods, which involves excavation of an open trench in a linear fashion along the proposed alignment(s). Implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be required for the duration of the project per South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403, Fugitive Dust. Any hardscape (i.e., asphalt or concrete paving) that would be removed as part of the proposed pipeline construction activities would be replaced in‐kind, and thus the pipeline components of the Project would not result in the net loss or addition of hardscape area. Trench width is anticipated to be up to approximately 8.5 feet in the dual pipe areas (see Figure A‐4 above) and about four feet in the single pipeline areas. Depth of excavation is expected to be kept to a minimum with no less than four feet of soil cover over the pipeline, or about seven feet to the bottom of the trench. Localized areas will require deeper excavations depending on local terrain and other utility infrastructure crossings. The deepest anticipated excavation is anticipated to be 15 feet to the bottom of the trench. Cal Water has committed to reusing as much of the soil excavated from the trench for engineered backfill. Surplus suitable soil from pipeline trenching activities will be used for fill at the pump station site where it is anticipated that approximately 100,000 cubic yards (CY) of the spoil material from the pipeline installation can be utilized for construction of that Project component. It is also anticipated that another approximately 20,000 CY may require off‐site disposal at an inert waste landfill or reuse at the nearest site in the region needing fill materials.

Cal Water anticipates that construction will consist of two separate construction teams, each with between 12 and 15 workers, working concurrently in different locations in order to expedite completion of construction. This does not include truck drivers bringing materials to and from the construction sites, nor traffic control workers (the number of which would vary by which traffic control plan is in effect at that time). In addition to the two pipeline crews working simultaneously, a third crew would be working separately at the pump station to construct that facility, and it is anticipated that there would also be several smaller crews doing right‐of‐way preparation/restoration and appurtenance installation. Cal Water would also have crews working at the designated lay down and staging areas to prepare materials for construction. At the peak of construction activities, the average crews would include, but would not be limited to, the following:

 Pipe Crew #1: 12‐15 workers  Pipe Crew #2: 12‐15 workers  Traffic Control (both crews): 6‐10 workers  Appurtenance crew: 2‐4 workers  Welding crew: 2‐4 workers  Concrete batch plant: 3‐4 workers  Pump station: 5‐10 workers  Truck drivers: 5‐10 workers  Construction Management/Inspection staff: 7‐10 workers

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA A‐15 Attachment A Project Description November2017

Overall, this yields roughly 54 to 82 workers actively working on the Project at any time. It is possible that some days could require more workers, or up to approximately 100 construction staff during major efforts during peak construction.

Each work crew is anticipated to construct approximately 100 feet of pipeline per work day, and thus construction activities would only occur in any one particular location for a period of a few days, such that construction‐related noise, air pollution, traffic, and/or other effects would be experienced by nearby residents for only a relatively short duration. It is currently anticipated that each pipeline crew will require about 70 truck trips per day between the pipeline installation area and the laydown yard, pump station site, or to/from off‐site locations (i.e., material and equipment deliveries). This is based on average production throughout the entire Project, and includes pipe delivery trucks, concrete trucks and dump trucks. This number does not include pickup truck trips for small items and personnel. b. Pump Station With regard to construction of the proposed booster pump station, the facility would be constructed within the boundaries of the booster station property along Crenshaw Boulevard, though below‐ground pipeline connections beneath Crenshaw Boulevard outside the pump station site would also be necessary. Construction of the pump station would result in a net increase of approximately 18,000 square feet of hardscape including all paving and building areas at this location. The pump station would involve the excavation of earth materials to allow for construction of the pump station’s underground pump suction and building foundation, followed by construction of the pump station building (pump room and control room) and installation of the above‐ground surge tanks, electrical transformer, and emergency generator. Truck trips for delivery of soil from pipeline construction areas (i.e., soil excavated from pipeline trenches) would be similar to those discussed above for pipeline construction (or about 70 trips per day), but after the completion of pump station grading it is estimated that only three to four truck trips per day will be required to deliver materials and equipment to the pump station site. c. Construction Parking, Staging, and Equipment Storage It is anticipated that construction worker parking, material stockpiling, and equipment staging would occur within two (2) designated staging areas. The first, smaller staging area, located at the northeast corner of Palos Verdes Drive North and Palos Verdes Drive East, would only store construction equipment. The second and larger of the two staging areas, located in the southeast portion of the former Los Angeles County landfill property along the north side of Crenshaw Boulevard across from the South Coast Botanic Garden, would function as the main construction parking, staging, stockpiling, and equipment laydown area for the Project. Any fuels such as diesel/gasoline or other liquid chemicals will be housed within secondary containments. It should be noted that equipment and materials may also be staged along the pipeline alignment where adequate space exists and also within available portions of the pump station site.

4. Construction Methods As noted above, the majority of Project construction would involve open‐trench pipeline construction. The Project would not involve any pipe‐jacking or micro‐tunneling construction methods given the proposed pipe diameters and lack of adequate space to excavate the jacking or tunneling equipment pits that are required to employ such methods. The Project design has been developed to avoid the need for piles (driven or drilled). Although shallow auger holes would be necessary for the installation of light poles and below‐ grade pumps, this would only require the use of small excavator‐mounted equipment. Concrete and asphalt

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA A‐16 November 2017 Attachment A Project Description would be recycled at an off‐site location, while as noted above, soil would be reused within the Project site to the maximum extent possible.

5. Construction Traffic and Haul Routes a. Construction Traffic Management Plan Cal Water’s objective is to deliver the Project in a timely and cost‐effective manner that will minimize impacts on the environment and community. A detailed Construction Traffic Management Plan will be provided as part of the final design of the Project, subject to review and approval by the City of Rolling Hills Estates, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and County of Los Angeles, as applicable. The Plan will follow the standards outlined in the Caltrans Traffic Manual as well as City of Rolling Hills Estates, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and County of Los Angeles Guidelines. Contractors will be required to follow a prescribed set of directives and restrictions in order to minimize traffic congestion. While the details of the Construction Traffic Management Plan have yet to be developed, it is anticipated that a minimum of one travel lane in each direction would be maintained along both Crenshaw Boulevard and Palos Verdes Drive North throughout construction activities.

In addition, Cal Water will notify all affected property owners of the access restrictions and traffic detours that will occur during construction. Cal Water will also maintain contact with emergency service providers, school bus agencies, refuse collection agencies, equestrian‐related delivery companies, and transportation service agencies to route their vehicles around and through the work zones. b. Truck Haul Routes Haul routes for soil hauling and delivery trucks will need to be coordinated with and approved by the City of Rolling Hills Estates, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and the County of Los Angeles, but it is anticipated that Crenshaw Boulevard, Palos Verdes Drive North, and Rolling Hills Road could all be utilized for truck routes depending on which segment(s) of pipeline is being worked on at the time.

G. NECESSARY APPROVALS Approvals required for implementation of the Project include, but are not limited to, the following:

 City of Rolling Hills Estates – Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration, Conditional Use Permit and Variances (Pump Station), encroachment, building, and other permits for various facilities within the City, as well as any necessary easement(s) for construction of proposed facilities on City property  City of Rancho Palos Verdes ‐ Encroachment, building, and other permits for various facilities within the City, as well as any necessary easement(s) for construction of proposed facilities on City property  United State Army Corps of Engineers ‐ Section 404 Permit  California Department of Fish and Wildlife ‐ Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement  State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water ‐ Permit to construct and operate public drinking water facilities

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA A‐17 Attachment A Project Description November2017

 California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control – Approval of Site Health and Safety Plan for excavation and construction activities in proximity to former landfill area at South Coast Botanic Garden  Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board ‐ Section 401 Water Quality Certification  County of Los Angeles ‐ Encroachment, building, flood control connection, and other permits for various facilities within unincorporated Los Angeles County, as well as any necessary easement(s) for construction of proposed facilities on County property  Other permits and approvals as needed

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA A‐18

Attachment B Explanation of Checklist Determinations

ATTACHMENT B ‐ EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST DETERMINATIONS

I. AESTHETICS Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site, including the proposed pipeline alignment and pump station site, is located within an urbanized area surrounded by single‐ and multi‐family residential uses, recreational facilities (e.g., trails, golf courses), open space areas, and commercial uses, as well as various public facilities (e.g., Palos Verdes Reservoir, South Coast Botanic Garden [“SCBG”], etc.). Given the sloping topography of the Project area, as well as the availability of panoramic views along the proposed alignment, a number of scenic vistas are located within the viewshed of the Project site. However, despite the presence of a number of scenic vistas that would be accessible from the Project site, either from existing public street rights‐of‐way or private property through which the Project would traverse, the Project would involve the construction of new water conveyance pipelines that would be located entirely underground (with the exception of limited above‐ground appurtenances) throughout the proposed alignment. While short‐term construction activities could have the potential to temporarily obstruct or detract from views of scenic resources in the area, such impacts would not occur for more than a few days in any one location such that any adverse effects would be of short duration. Furthermore, upon completion of construction activities along a given pipeline section, the ground surface and any above‐ground improvements (e.g., paving, landscaping, other features) would be restored to pre‐Project conditions. As such, impacts to scenic vistas resulting from construction and operation of the proposed pipelines would be less than significant.

With regard to the proposed pump station, this structure would be located above ground along Crenshaw Boulevard at the base of a steep and winding canyon, which is only visible for a short distance along the northbound and southbound approaches of the roadway and from the most proximate residential uses at the top of the bluffs on either side of the right‐of‐way. Although the Project would construct the new pump station structure on a site that is currently vacant, based on the very limited visibility of the site from surrounding locations, and the lack of notable scenic vistas available from the immediate vicinity along Crenshaw Boulevard (due to the adjacent topographic features), construction and operation of the proposed pump station would not substantially adversely affect any publicly available scenic vistas in the Project area and impacts in this regard would be less than significant. b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Less Than Significant Impact. Roadways that provide scenic views within the state of California are classified by California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) as officially designated scenic highways.1 The proposed alignment is not located in the vicinity of a state scenic highway. The closest officially

1 California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway Mapping System – Los Angeles County. Available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm. Accessed May 2017.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐1

Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017 designated state scenic highway to the Project is State Route 2 (Angeles Crest Highway), which is located approximately 30 miles north‐northeast of the project site at the closest point, while the closest eligible state scenic highway is State Route 1 (Pacific Coast Highway), which is located approximately 18 miles northeast of the project site at the closest point. It should be noted that although not State‐designated scenic highways exist in the Project area, several designated scenic roadways and/or view corridors are located along the proposed pipeline alignment, as well as the section of Crenshaw Boulevard along which the proposed pump station would be constructed, which is officially designated as a Scenic Corridor in the City of Rolling Hills Estates General Plan.2

Although other scenic resources (including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, view corridors, open space areas, and historic buildings) exist along or near the Project, implementation of the Project would not permanently adversely affect views from these roadways, as the linear Project components (i.e., pipelines) within these areas would be buried below grade. Thus, although temporary construction activities in proximity or within the viewshed of designated scenic resources could adversely detract from or obstruct views of such resources, impacts in this regard would not be substantial given that such effects would be short‐term in nature and would only occur in the immediate vicinity of construction activities in a given location for a limited time. Thus, temporary construction effects would be less than significant.

As relates to the pump station, this structure would be constructed along a curved section of Crenshaw Boulevard on an existing vacant site at the base of a 165‐foot bluff face, with similarly steep slopes located on the opposite side of Crenshaw Boulevard, which would substantially limit the visibility of the structure from areas beyond the immediate vicinity. Thus, the pump station, once constructed, would only be directly visible at ground level from segments of Crenshaw Boulevard northeast of its intersection with Silver Spur Road (for vehicles traveling northbound) and from approximately 500 feet east of the pump station site (for vehicles traveling southbound). The pump station would also be visible from a number of private residences located at the top of the slopes along either side of Crenshaw Boulevard, but given the limited size of the proposed pump station structure and related improvements on the site, it would not represent a substantial portion of the available view field and would not substantially damage scenic resources in the Project area. Please also see discussions regarding impacts to scenic vistas and visual character/quality in Responses to Item I.a. above, and Item I.c. below, respectively.

Therefore, less than significant impacts to scenic resources would result from construction and operation of the Project and no mitigation is required. c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would involve the construction of approximately seven miles of underground potable water pipeline along the proposed alignment and a pump station along Crenshaw Boulevard just east of Silver Spur Road. Visual impacts to the surrounding community would occur temporarily during the construction phase, and only for a few days in any one location (within the viewshed of any one residence or business), with the exception of the construction of the pump station, which would

2 City of Rolling Hills Estates. Rolling Hills Estates General Plan. Adopted 1992. Section 2 – Land Use Elements. Exhibit 2‐10: Overlay Map Planning Area 5. Available at: http://ci.rolling‐hills‐estates.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=1925. Accessed June 28, 2017.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐2

November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations occur for approximately 12 months at the proposed pump station site (see separate discussion below regarding the pump station). Because the pipeline would be placed underground, and the ground surface features returned to pre‐Project conditions, operation of the pipeline would not affect the visual character of the community in the vicinity of the project. Some of the appurtenant structures (such as air vacuum valves and cabinets), the pump station, and retaining walls would be located aboveground. The pipeline appurtenances would be located within the bridle trail portions of the public right‐of‐way (for on‐street segments of the pipeline), in open space areas along the proposed alignment, or in other accessible public locations (e.g., SCBG property), and are necessary for the operation and maintenance of the pipeline. These structures would be placed, as necessary, along the alignment. Although some limited above‐ground structures would be located along the alignment, these small‐scale facilities would be discreetly located such that they are not visually intrusive or even perceptible to viewers traveling along public streets in the area. Given the limited visual effect of the pipeline appurtenances, impacts to visual character or quality of the Project site would be less than significant.

The pump station, as noted above, would be located along the Crenshaw Boulevard corridor at the base of a 165‐foot‐high bluff. Although the pump station site is currently vacant, and contains limited native scrub vegetation, the property has been previous disturbed by roadway construction, remedial grading and other slope stability‐related safety improvements, and thus the existing visual quality of the pump station site is considered low. In order to illustrate the visual effects of the proposed pump station on the visual character of the surrounding area, several visual simulations of the structure were prepared. Figure B‐1, Simulation 1 ‐ View Southwest from Crenshaw Boulevard, Figure B‐2, Simulation 2 ‐ View Northwest from Sunnyridge Road, and Figure B‐3, Simulation 3 – View North from Southbound Crenshaw Boulevard, below, illustrate the proposed pump station and associated improvements in the context of the pump station site from various viewpoints in the area where views of the facility are available. As shown in Figures B‐1 through B‐3, the proposed pump station structure would be a single building surrounded by a security fence and retaining walls, and would include architectural features and landscaping that would reduce the visual effects of the structure. Such structures are common elements of the urban environment, and although the pump station structure would be placed aboveground in proximity to, though not within, a roadway designated as a Scenic Corridor by the City of Rolling Hills Estates General Plan, it is not anticipated to substantially degrade the visual character of the site or the surrounding community. Therefore, impacts to the visual character of the surrounding area would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact. The pipeline portion of the Project would be located below ground along roadways, bridle trails, public school property, and easements (including through the SCBG) surrounded by a dense mixture of several urban uses, including residential, recreational, and commercial uses and various public facilities. The proposed pump station would be located aboveground at the pump station site on the northwest side of Crenshaw Boulevard, which does not have street lights along the right‐of‐way. External and internal night and day illumination is already in place within the Project area, where necessary, mainly associated with the residential uses at the top of the bluffs, as well as vehicle headlights, which constitute the majority of light and glare sources in close proximity to the pump station site.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐3

DPCIR01.EP

SOURCE: Black & Veatch, 2017 PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project Figure B-1 Simulation #1 - View southwest from Crenshaw Boulevard DPCIR01.EP

SOURCE: Black & Veatch, 2017 PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project Figure B-2 Simulation #2 - View northwest from Sunnyridge Road DPCIR01.EP

SOURCE: Black & Veatch, 2017 PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project Figure B-3 Simulation #3 - View North from southbound Crenshaw Boulevard November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations

The Project would involve the construction of below‐ground water pipelines and limited incidental aboveground appurtenant structures, as well as the pump station; the construction phase would be temporary and activities would generally only occur during daylight hours. However, traffic control and safety measures, such as barriers, reflective signs, and flashing warnings would be implemented, as necessary, and could introduce sources of light and/or glare into the surrounding area, but only on a temporary basis during construction.

Operation of the pipeline portion of the Project would occur below the ground surface of the existing grade; therefore, no light or glare impacts would occur from pipeline operation. Operation of the pipeline appurtenant structures and the pump station would not create or require new sources of light or glare, aside from necessary security lighting for the pump station facility, and the pump station would not include any windows or other reflective surfaces that could generate glare. Given the very limited nature of proposed lighting associated with the pump station, despite the lack of stationary light sources in proximity to the site, the introduction of minimal security lighting to this location would not represent a substantial increase in lighting effects, particularly when considering of the presence of significant traffic and associated headlight‐ related lighting effects along this section of Crenshaw Boulevard. As such, no significant light or glare impacts are anticipated to result from the construction and operation of the Project and no mitigation is required.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐7

Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017

II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment of and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and forest carbon measurements methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non‐agricultural use? No Impact. The Project site is currently developed with public street rights‐of‐way, public utility easements, bridle trails, a public elementary school property, part of the Los Angeles County SCBG property, and other public and private property. No agricultural uses or related operations are present within the site or surrounding area. No portion of the Project site is located on designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.3 Furthermore, the City of Rolling Hills Estates General Plan (1992), the City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan (1975), and the County of Los Angeles General Plan (2035) do not identify the Project site as an area designated for agriculture use. Therefore, the Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non‐agricultural uses. No impact would occur in this regard. b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract? No Impact. As discussed above, the Project site is currently developed with public street rights‐of‐way, public utility easements, bridle trails, a public elementary school property, part of the Los Angeles County SCBG property, and other public and private property. No agricultural zoning is present within the Project site and no portion of the site is enrolled in a Williamson Act contract. As such, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract and no impact would occur in this regard.

3 State of California Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder, http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/ciff/ciff.html, accessed May 2017.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐8

November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 1220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? No Impact. As noted in Response II.b., above, the Project site’s existing zoning designations do not include agricultural or forestry‐related uses or activities. No forest land or timberland zoning is present on the Project site or in the surrounding area. As such, the Project would not have the potential to conflict with existing zoning for forest land or timberland and no impact would occur in this regard. d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use? No Impact. No forest land exists on the Project site or in the surrounding area, and implementation of the proposed water system improvements would have no potential to affect forest lands. As such, the Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use and no impact would occur in this regard. e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non‐agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use? No Impact. Since there are no agricultural uses or related operations within or near the Project site, and the Project would involve the construction and operation of two new pipelines and a pump station to provide domestic water service to existing uses within the service area, the Project would not involve the conversion of farmland to other uses, either directly or indirectly. No impacts to farmland or agricultural uses would occur.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐9

Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017

III. AIR QUALITY The analysis and conclusions presented below are based, in part, on air quality modeling data prepared by ESA for the Project, which are provided in Appendix A of this Initial Study.

Where available, the significance criteria established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) or air quality management plan may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located within the 6,745‐square‐mile South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). Air quality planning for the SCAB is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD has adopted a series of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMP) to meet the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for criteria air pollutants. The SCAQMD is required, pursuant to the Clean Air Act, to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the SCAB is in non‐attainment of the NAAQS (e.g., ozone(O3) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5)). The SCAQMD, California Air Resources Board (CARB), and United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) have adopted the 2012 AQMP which incorporates scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, regarding air quality and regional growth projections from the Southern California Association of Governments, and emission inventory methodologies for various source categories.4 The key undertaking of the 2012 AQMP is to bring the Air Basin into attainment with the

NAAQS for the 24‐hour PM2.5 standard. It also intensifies the scope and pace of continued air quality improvement efforts toward meeting the 8‐hour O3 standard with new measures designed to reduce reliance on the federal CAA Section 182(e)(5) long‐term measures for NOX and VOC reductions. The SCAQMD expects exposure reductions to be achieved through implementation of new and advanced control technologies as well as improvement of existing technologies.

The 2012 AQMP was prepared to accommodate growth, reduce the high levels of pollutants within the areas under the jurisdiction of SCAQMD, return clean air to the region, and minimize the impact on the economy. Projects that are consistent with the assumptions used in the AQMP do not interfere with attainment because the growth is included in the projections utilized in the formulation of the AQMP. Thus, projects, uses, and activities that are consistent with the applicable growth projections and control strategies used in the development of the AQMP would not jeopardize attainment of the air quality levels identified in the AQMP, even if it would individually exceed the SCAQMD’s numeric indicators.

The SCAQMD released the Draft 2016 AQMP on June 30, 2016 for public review and comment. A revised Draft 2016 AQMP was released in October 2016 and the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted the 2016 AQMP on March 3, 2017.5 CARB approved the 2016 AQMP on March 23, 2017. USEPA approval is pending, but is a necessary requirement before the 2016 AQMP can be incorporated into the SIP. Key elements of the 2016 AQMP include implementing fair‐share emissions reductions strategies at the federal, state, and local levels;

4 SCAQMD, 2013. Final Air Quality Management Plan. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/clean‐air‐plans/air‐quality‐ mgt‐plan/final‐2012‐air‐quality‐management‐plan. Accessed March 2017. 5 SCAQMD, 2016. Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), Final 2016 AQMP. Available: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/clean‐air‐ plans/air‐quality‐mgt‐plan. Accessed March 2017.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐10

November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations establishing partnerships, funding, and incentives to accelerate deployment of zero and near‐zero‐emissions technologies; and taking credit from co‐benefits from greenhouse gas, energy, transportation and other planning efforts. The strategies included in the 2016 AQMP are intended to demonstrate attainment of the

NAAQS for the federal O3 and PM2.5 standards. Until such time as the 2016 AQMP is approved by the USEPA, the 2012 AQMP remains the applicable AQMP.

Construction Emissions Construction activities associated with the Project have the potential to generate temporary criteria pollutant emissions through the use of heavy‐duty construction equipment, such as excavators and compactors, and through vehicle trips generated from worker trips and haul trucks traveling to and from the Project site. In addition, fugitive dust emissions would result from demolition and various soil‐handling activities. Mobile source emissions, primarily NOX, would result from the use of construction equipment such as dozers and loaders. Construction emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific type of construction activity, and prevailing weather conditions. The assessment of construction air quality impacts considers each of these potential sources.

Under this criterion, the SCAQMD recommends that lead agencies demonstrate that a project would not directly obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan and that a project be consistent with the assumptions (typically land‐use related, such as resultant employment or residential units) upon which the air quality plan are based. The project would result in an increase in short‐term employment compared to existing conditions. Being relatively small in number and temporary in nature, construction jobs under the project would not conflict with the long‐term employment projections upon which the AQMP is based. Control strategies in the AQMP with potential applicability to short‐term emissions from construction activities include strategies denoted in the AQMP as ONRD‐04 and OFFRD‐01, which are intended to reduce emissions from on‐road and off‐road heavy‐duty vehicles and equipment by accelerating replacement of older, emissions‐prone engines with newer engines meeting more stringent emission standards. Construction contractors would be required to comply with the CARB Air Toxic Control Measure that limits heavy duty diesel motor vehicle idling to no more than 5 minutes at any given location. In addition, the Project would utilize a construction contractor(s) that complies with required and applicable Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and the CARB In‐Use Off‐Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation to use lower emitting equipment in accordance with the phased‐in compliance schedule for equipment fleet operators. The project would not conflict with implementation of these strategies. Additionally, the project would comply with CARB requirements to minimize short‐term emissions from on‐road and off‐road diesel equipment. The project would also comply with SCAQMD regulations for controlling fugitive dust pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 403.

Compliance with these requirements is consistent with and meets or exceeds the AQMP requirements for control strategies intended to reduce emissions from construction equipment and activities. Because the project would not conflict with the control strategies intended to reduce emissions from construction equipment, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP, and impacts would be less than significant.

Operation The 2012 AQMP was prepared to accommodate growth, reduce the levels of pollutants within the areas under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD, return clean air to the region, and minimize the impact on the economy. Projects that are considered consistent with the AQMP would not interfere with attainment

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐11

Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017 because this growth is included in the projections used in the formulation of the AQMP. The Project represents an infrastructure project that would have no effect on long‐term population and employment growth. The project does not include residential or commercial development and its implementation is not forecasted to induce any additional growth within the service area. As discussed in Attachment A, Project Description, the project would construct new potable water pipelines and a new pump station to replace the current water distribution system serving the Palos Verdes Peninsula, which has reached its useful service life, and improve overall system reliability. Therefore, the project would not conflict with growth projections in the AQMP. As the project would not conflict with the growth projections in the AQMP, impacts would be less than significant. b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As indicated above, the project site is located within the SCAB, which is characterized by relatively poor air quality. State and federal air quality standards are often exceeded in many parts of the SCAB, including those monitoring stations nearest to the project site. The project would contribute to local and regional air pollutant emissions during construction (short‐term or temporary) and project occupancy (long‐term). However, based on the following analysis, construction, with incorporated mitigation measures, and operation of the project would result in less than significant impacts relative to the daily significance thresholds for criteria air pollutant emissions established by the SCAQMD for construction and operational phases.6

Daily regional and annual construction and operational source project criteria pollutant emissions (oxides of nitrogen [NOX], volatile organic compounds [VOC], particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less [PM10], particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less [PM2.5], sulfur oxides [SOX], and carbon monoxide [CO]) are estimated using the CalEEMod (Version 2016.3.2) software, an emissions inventory software program recommended by the SCAQMD. The model also calculates greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from direct and indirect sources and quantifies applicable air quality and GHG reductions achieved from mitigation measures. CalEEMod is based on outputs from OFFROAD and EMFAC, which are emissions estimation models developed by CARB and used to calculate emissions from construction activities, including on‐ and off‐road vehicles and statewide and regional emissions inventories from all motor vehicles, including passenger cars to heavy‐duty trucks, operating on highways, freeways, and local roads in California. The input values used in the CalEEMod modeling analysis were adjusted based on project specific information.

Construction Emissions

Construction activities associated with the project would result in emissions of CO, VOCs, NOX, SOX, PM10, and

PM2.5. Construction related emissions are expected from the trenching, paving, building construction, and construction worker commutes. Construction is expected to commence in July 2018 and would last through July 2019. Construction duration by phase is provided in Table B‐1, Estimated Construction Schedule. The construction schedule utilized in the Air Quality Impact Analysis represents a “worst‐case” scenario. If project construction commences later than the anticipated start date, air quality impacts would be less than those analyzed herein, because a more energy‐efficient and cleaner burning construction equipment fleet mix would be expected in the future, pursuant to State regulations that require construction equipment fleet

6 SCAQMD, 2015. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, March 2015. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐ source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd‐air‐quality‐significance‐thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed March 2017.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐12

November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations operators to phase‐in less polluting heavy‐duty equipment. Additionally, construction of the pipelines is expected to occur on a more staggered schedule rather than assuming simultaneous construction of all pipelines. Therefore, air quality impacts would generally be less than those analyzed herein due to less emissions generated in a day. The duration of construction activity and associated equipment represents a reasonable approximation of the expected construction fleet as required per CEQA guidelines. Site specific construction fleet may vary due to specific project needs at the time of construction. The duration of construction activity and associated construction equipment was estimated based on consultation with the project applicant. A detailed summary of construction equipment assumptions by phase is provided in Table B‐2, Construction Equipment Assumptions.

TABLE B‐1 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE A

Activity Start Date End Date Duration (Work Days) b Grading/Excavation (Station) 7/27/2018 11/26/2018 105 Trenching (Pipeline #1) 8/21/2018 11/27/2018 85 Trenching (Pipeline #2) 8/21/2018 1/28/2019 138 Trenching (Pipeline #3) 8/21/2018 1/21/2019 132 Trenching (Pipeline #4) 8/21/2018 5/9/2019 225 Trenching (Pipeline #5) 8/21/2018 5/9/2019 225 Building Construction (Station) 11/27/2018 7/11/2019 195 Architectural Coating (Station) 6/27/2019 7/3/2019 6

a For the purposes of this air quality analysis, it is assumed all five pipelines would have work crews and be constructed simultaneously with the Station. However, the Project would be constructed with two pipeline crews active and constructed simultaneously with the Station. Therefore, this analysis provides for a conservative (i.e., health protective) emissions estimate for two pipelines constructed simultaneously with the Station.

b This analysis assumes an average 6‐day work week as the Project could have occasional weekend construction activity.

SOURCE: ESA 2017.

TABLE B‐2 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ASSUMPTIONS

Activity Equipment Number Hours Per Day Excavator 1 8 Grading/Excavation Compactors 18 (Station) Rubber Tired Dozers 18 Dumper 1 8 Excavators 1 8 Trenching (Pipeline #1) Signal Boards 28 Sweepers/Scrubbers 18 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 18 Dumper 1 8 Trenching (Pipeline #2) Excavators 1 8 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 18 Graders 1 8 Excavators 1 8 Trenching (Pipeline #3) Rubber Tired Dozers 18 Rubber Tired Loaders 18 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 18

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐13

Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017

Activity Equipment Number Hours Per Day Trenchers 18 Graders 1 8 Excavators 1 8 Trenching (Pipeline #4) Rubber Tired Dozers 18 Rubber Tired Loaders 18 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 18 Dumper 1 8 Excavators 1 8 Trenching (Pipeline #5) Signal Boards 28 Sweepers/Scrubbers 18 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 18 Cranes 1 8 Forklifts 2 8 Building Construction Generator Sets 18 (Station) Compactors 28 Welders 18 Paving Paver 1 8

Architectural Coating Air Compressors 18

SOURCE: ESA 2017.

The estimated unmitigated maximum daily construction emissions are summarized on Table B‐3, Unmitigated Maximum Daily Regional Construction Emissions. Under the assumed scenarios, emissions resulting from the project construction would exceed criteria pollutant thresholds for NOX established by the

SCAQMD. Implementation of mitigation measure MM AQ‐1 would reduce emissions to less than the NOX significance threshold. The estimated mitigated maximum daily construction emissions are summarized on Table B‐4, Mitigated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions. Under the mitigated scenario, emissions resulting from the project construction would not exceed any criteria pollutant thresholds established by the SCAQMD. As such, a less than significant impact would occur with mitigation incorporated.

TABLE B‐3 UNMITIGATED MAXIMUM DAILY REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS

Construction Year Emissions (pounds per day)

VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 a PM2.5 a 2018 12.8 120.4 82.6 0.2 12.0 7.6 2019 35.5 99.9 68.5 0.2 8.0 5.1 Maximum Daily Emissions 35.5 120.4 82.6 0.2 12.0 7.6 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? NoYes No No No No

a Emissions include fugitive dust control measures consistent with SCAQMD Rule 403.

SOURCE: ESA 2017.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐14

November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations

TABLE B‐4 MITIGATED MAXIMUM DAILY REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS

Construction Year Emissions (pounds per day)

VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 a PM2.5 a 2018 5.9 70.1 93.0 0.2 7.0 3.0 2019 34.1 61.7 79.4 0.2 4.1 1.5 Maximum Daily Emissions 34.1 70.1 93.0 0.2 7.0 3.0 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? NoNoNoNoNo No

a Emissions include fugitive dust control measures consistent with SCAQMD Rule 403.

SOURCE: ESA 2017.

Operational Emissions As the project is an infrastructure project that involves the replacement of outdated pipelines and pump station, operation of the project would not result in a net increase in operational emissions. However, the project would require periodic maintenance activities which would involve a few trucks or vehicles each month and the periodic testing and maintenance of the emergency generators which would generate periodic emissions. Mobile emissions from the few vehicles for monthly maintenance and the testing and maintenance of the emergency generator for several hours per month, would result in minimal emissions well below the SCAQMD operational thresholds. Emergency generators are permitted by the SCAQMD and regulated under SCAQMD Rule 1470, and typically permit up to 50 hours per year of maintenance and testing. Overall, given the small scale and sporadic usage of maintenance vehicles and emergency generators, project operational‐source emissions would not exceed applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance. As such, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures MM AQ‐1: The Project shall utilize off‐road diesel‐powered construction equipment that meets or exceeds the CARB and USEPA Tier 3 off‐road emissions standards for equipment rated at 50 hp or greater during Project construction. Such equipment will be outfitted with Best Available Control Technology (BACT) devices including a CARB certified Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filter or equivalent. These requirements shall be included in applicable bid documents and successful contractor(s) must demonstrate the ability to supply such equipment. A copy of each unit’s certified tier specification or model year specification and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit (if applicable) shall be available upon request at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment. c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non‐attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less Than Significant Impact. The SCAB is currently in extreme nonattainment for ozone and non‐ attainment PM10, and PM2.5. The SCAQMD’s approach for assessing cumulative impacts related to operations

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐15

Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017 is based on attainment of ambient air quality standards in accordance with the requirements of the federal and State Clean Air Acts. As discussed above, the SCAQMD has developed a comprehensive plan, the 2012 AQMP, which addresses the region’s cumulative air quality condition.

A significant impact may occur if a project were to add a cumulatively considerable contribution of a federal or State non‐attainment pollutant. Because the SCAB is currently in nonattainment for ozone, PM10 and PM2.5, related projects could cause ambient concentrations to exceed an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality exceedance. Cumulative impacts to air quality are evaluated under two sets of thresholds for CEQA and the SCAQMD. In particular, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(h)(3) provides guidance in determining the significance of cumulative impacts. Specifically, Section 15064(h)(3) states in part that:

“A lead agency may determine that a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project will comply with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program which provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem (e.g., water quality control plan, air quality plan, integrated waste management plan) within the geographic area in which the project is located. Such plans or programs must be specified in law or adopted by the public agency with jurisdiction over the affected resources through a public review process to implement, interpret, or make specific the law enforced or administered by the public agency…”

For purposes of the cumulative air quality analysis with respect to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3), the project’s incremental contribution to cumulative air quality impacts is determined based on compliance with the SCAQMD adopted 2012 AQMP. The 2012 AQMP includes demographic growth forecasts for various socioeconomic categories (e.g. population, housing, employment), developed by SCAG for their Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). As discussed under Response III.a, above, the project would be consistent with the 2012 AQMP.

As the project is not part of an ongoing regulatory program, the SCAQMD also recommends that project‐ specific air quality impacts be used to determine the potential cumulative impacts to regional air quality. As discussed above, peak daily emissions of operation‐related pollutants would not exceed SCAQMD regional significance thresholds. By applying SCAQMD’s cumulative air quality impact methodology, implementation of the project would not result in an addition of criteria pollutants such that cumulative impacts would occur, in conjunction with related projects in the region. In addition, as discussed in Response III.b above and Response III.d below, construction of the project is not expected to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the SCAQMD has established a regional and localized impact threshold. As such, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The localized effects from the on‐site portion of the emissions are evaluated at nearby sensitive receptor locations potentially impacted by the Project according to the SCAQMD’s Localized Significance Threshold Methodology,7 which relies on on‐site

7 SCAQMD, 2008. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air‐quality‐analysis‐handbook/localized‐significance‐thresholds. Accessed March 2017.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐16

November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations mass emission rate screening tables and project‐specific dispersion modeling typically for sites greater than five acres, as appropriate. The localized significance thresholds are applicable to NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5.

For NOX and CO, the thresholds are based on the ambient air quality standards. For PM10 and PM2.5, the thresholds are based on requirements in SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) for construction and Rule 1303 (New Source Review Requirements) for operations. The SCAQMD has established screening criteria that can be used to determine the maximum allowable daily emissions that would satisfy the localized significance thresholds and therefore not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the applicable ambient air quality standards without project‐specific dispersion modeling. The screening criteria depend on: (1) the area in which the project is located, (2) the size of the project site, and (3) the distance between the project site and the nearest sensitive receptor (e.g., residences, schools, hospitals). The screening criteria were utilized in this assessment. For the project, the appropriate Source Receptor Area (SRA) for the LST is the Southwest Los Angeles County Coastal monitoring station (SRA 3). Since the total acreage disturbed per day is less than five acres, SCAQMD’s screening look‐up tables were used to determine localized significance thresholds. The nearest sensitive receptor is the residential uses located adjacent to various portions of the pipeline and the pump station. SCAQMD’s Methodology clearly states that “off‐site mobile emissions from the project should not be included in the emissions compared to LSTs.” Therefore, for purposes of the LST analysis only emissions included in the CalEEMod “on‐site” emissions outputs were considered.

The significance thresholds from the LST screening look‐up tables were determined under the assumption that in the worst case scenario, construction activities from two pipeline reaches would together potentially impact the same nearest sensitive receptor. For example, the set of equipment used for construction of Pipeline Reach #1 and for construction of Pipeline Reach #2 would be assumed to generate localized emissions that would potentially impact the same nearest sensitive receptor. Under this maximum condition, with approximately 100 linear feet of pipeline installation in a day and construction equipment operating within an area approximately 40 feet in width based on typical roadway widths, the acreage disturbed per day could be up to approximately 0.75 acres for two pipeline reaches. Therefore, significance threshold from LST tables were determined based on a site area of 0.75 acres with the nearest sensitive receptor 25 meters away. The same threshold was used for the construction activities for the pump station and pipeline reach #5, of which the combined disturbed area is expected to be approximately the same.

Construction Emissions

The unmitigated localized emissions during construction activity would exceed PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds of the SCAQMD’s localized significance thresholds. Table B‐5, Unmitigated Maximum Daily Localized Construction Emissions, identifies the localized impacts at the nearest receptor location in the vicinity of the project site. Implementation of mitigation measure MM AQ‐1 would prevent potential significant impact from exceeding the PM10 and PM2.5 localized significance thresholds. The estimated mitigated maximum daily construction emissions are summarized on Table B‐6, Mitigated Maximum Daily Localized Construction Emissions. Under the assumed mitigated scenarios, localized emissions resulting from the project construction would not exceed any criteria pollutant thresholds established by the SCAQMD. As such, a less than significant impact would occur with mitigation incorporated.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐17

Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017

TABLE B‐5 UNMITIGATED MAXIMUM DAILY LOCALIZED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS

On‐Site Emissions Emissions (pounds per day)

NOX CO PM10 a PM2.5 a Pump Station & Pipeline 31.9 25.1 3.8 2.6 Reach #5 Pipeline Reach #1 & #2 15.8 14.3 1.0 0.9 Pipeline Reach #2 & #3 41.0 22.2 2.0 1.9 Pipeline Reach #3 & #4 65.5 29.9 3.0 2.8 Pipeline Reach #4 & #5 40.8 22.4 2.0 1.8 Maximum Daily Emissions 65.5 29.9 3.8 2.6 SCAQMD Localized 81 588.25 3.5 2.5 Threshold Threshold Exceeded? No No Yes Yes

a Emissions include fugitive dust control measures consistent with SCAQMD Rule 403.

SOURCE: ESA 2017.

TABLE B‐6 MITIGATED MAXIMUM DAILY LOCALIZED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS

On‐Site Emissions Emissions (pounds per day)

NOX CO PM10 a PM2.5 a Pump Station & Pipeline 21.0 27.0 2.5 1.5 Reach #5 Pipeline Reach #1 & #2 11.5 15.5 0.2 0.2 Pipeline Reach #2 & #3 20.9 26.7 0.2 0.2 Pipeline Reach #3 & #4 30.9 37.9 0.2 0.2 Pipeline Reach #4 & #5 21.6 26.9 0.2 0.2 Maximum Daily Emissions 30.9 37.9 2.5 1.5 SCAQMD Localized 81 588.25 3.5 2.5 Threshold Threshold Exceeded? No No No No

a Emissions include fugitive dust control measures consistent with SCAQMD Rule 403.

SOURCE: ESA 2017.

Operational Emissions According to SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a Project, if the project includes stationary sources, or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g., warehouse or transfer facilities). As the project is an infrastructure project, no stationary emission sources are associated with it. The project pump station would have an emergency generators, but they are not expected to run for more than several hours per month for maintenance and testing, and are not expected to be a significant source of air emissions. As discussed previously, emergency generators are permitted by the SCAQMD and regulated under SCAQMD Rule 1470, and typically permit up

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐18

November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations to 50 hours per year of maintenance and testing. Overall, given the small scale and sporadic usage of maintenance vehicles and emergency generators, localized project operational‐source emissions would not exceed applicable SCAQMD localized thresholds of significance and operational impacts would be less than significant.

CO “Hot Spot” Analysis A CO hotspot is an area of localized CO pollution that is caused by severe vehicle congestion on major roadways, typically near intersections. Projects may worsen air quality if they increase the percentage of vehicles in cold start modes by two percent or more; significantly increase traffic volumes (by five percent or more) over existing volumes; or worsen traffic flow, defined for signalized intersections as increasing average delay at intersections operating at Level of Service (LOS) E or F or causing an intersection that would operate at LOS D or better without the Project, to operate at LOS E or F. While construction‐related traffic on the local roadways would occur during construction, the net increase of construction worker vehicle trips to the existing daily traffic volumes on the local roadways would be relatively small and would not result in CO hotspots. Additionally, the construction‐related vehicle trips would only occur in the short‐ term, and would cease once construction activities have been completed for each pipeline reach. During operation, since the project is an infrastructure project, only minimal emissions would be generated from vehicle trips by worker staff for periodic inspection and maintenance purposes. The project is not expected to cause any additional vehicle or truck trips other than limited and periodic maintenance trips for the pump station. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Toxic Air Contaminants Concentrations of toxic air contaminants (TACs) are also used as indicators of ambient air quality conditions. A TAC is defined as an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or that may pose a hazard to human health. TACs are usually present in minute quantities in the ambient air; however, their high toxicity or health risk may pose a threat to public health even at low concentrations.

Construction Intermittent construction activities associated with the Project would result in short‐term emissions of diesel particulate matter, which the State has identified as a TAC. During construction, the exhaust of off‐road heavy‐duty diesel equipment would emit diesel particulate matter during general construction activities, such as site preparation excavation, installation of machinery, materials transport and handling, and building construction.

Diesel particulate matter poses a carcinogenic health risk that is generally measured using an exposure period of 30 years for sensitive residential receptors, according to the California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (OEHHA Guidance), which was updated in 2015 with new exposure parameters including age sensitivity factors.8 Sensitive receptors would be located to the north and west of the Project area; however, localized diesel particulate matter emissions (strongly correlated with

8 OEHHA, 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. Available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/notice‐adoption‐air‐toxics‐hot‐spots‐program‐guidance‐manual‐preparation‐health‐risk‐0. Accessed March 2017.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐19

Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017

PM2.5 emissions) would be minimal and would be below localized thresholds as presented in Table B‐5. Although the localized analysis does not directly measure health risk impacts, it does provide data that can be used to evaluate the potential to cause health risk impacts. Furthermore, construction activity would occur for a temporary and short‐term duration at any one location as pipeline construction proceeds along a linear path. The low level of PM2.5 emissions coupled with the very short‐term duration of construction activity at any one location and the relatively small‐scale of the Project would result in an overall low level of diesel particulate matter concentrations in the Project area. Furthermore, compliance with the CARB ATCM anti‐idling measure, which limits idling to no more than five minutes at any location for diesel‐fueled commercial vehicles, would further minimize diesel particulate matter emissions in the Project area. The Project would utilize a construction contractor(s) that complies with required and applicable BACT and the In‐Use Off‐Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation. Thus, it is expected that sensitive receptors would be exposed to emissions below thresholds and construction TAC impacts would be less than significant.

Operations The Project would introduce new on‐site stationary equipment, such as an emergency generator. However, the generators are not expected to run for more than several hour in a month for preventative maintenance and testing. SCAQMD Rule 1470 permits up to 50 hours per year of maintenance and testing; therefore, annual generator emissions from maintenance and testing would be very small. The project would not include storage tanks or other equipment that would generate fugitive or evaporative TAC emissions. The project would not result in any other substantial sources of operational TAC emissions. Therefore, the Project would not expose surrounding sensitive receptors to TAC emissions. Impacts would be less than significant. e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact. Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include construction equipment exhaust, the application of asphalt, and the use of architectural coatings and solvents. According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, construction equipment is not a typical source of odors. SCAQMD Rule 1113 limits the amount of VOCs from architectural coatings and solvents. Further, construction odor emissions would be temporary, short‐term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the completion of construction. Through adherence with mandatory compliance with SCAQMD Rules, no construction activities or materials are proposed which would create objectionable odors.

According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting operations, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding facilities. The project does not have any uses matching any of the listed categories. Therefore, the Project would not generate odors affecting a substantial number of people and impacts would be less than significant.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐20

November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The following impact analysis pertaining to biological resources is based on information contained in the Palos Verdes Peninsula Water Reliability Project Biological Resources Assessment (herein referred to as the “Biological Resources Assessment”, or “BRA”), prepared by ESA, dated September 2017 (included as Appendix B to this Initial Study). Existing Conditions Study Area Characteristics The 107.72‐acre study area is located primarily in the City of Rolling Hills Estates in Los Angeles County. The majority of the study area is comprised of paved/unpaved roads, equestrian trails, and ornamental landscaping. Portions of the study area near Dapplegray Elementary School are primarily comprised of non‐ native herbaceous cover. Patches of native plant communities also occur within the study area, primarily on the slopes adjacent to Crenshaw Boulevard. Plant communities dominated by native species included California brittle bush scrub/non‐native herbaceous, California sagebrush scrub, coyote brush scrub, lemonade berry scrub, lemonade berry scrub/California sagebrush scrub, purple sage scrub, red willow thicket, and toyon chaparral/ornamental. The study area contains five primary drainage features referred to in this report as Drainage Complex A (includes Drainages A, A1, and A1.1), Drainage Complex B (includes Drainages B and B2), Crenshaw Ditch East, Crenshaw Ditch West, and Brent Spring Canyon. Drainage Complexes A and B and Crenshaw Ditches East and West are within the pipeline alignment, while Brent Spring Canyon is within the road improvement area and slope improvement areas associated with the Dapplegray Elementary School Upgrades. The pump station and staging areas do not support drainage features. The pump station is dominated by disturbed areas and ornamental vegetation with some lemonade berry scrub along the steep slope, while the staging areas are dominated by primarily non‐native herbaceous and ornamental vegetation. The study area also contains a non‐jurisdictional concrete v‐ditch that appears to have been recently excavated in uplands as part of the adjacent SCBG property located north/northeast of the study area. The topography on the study are consists of moderate to steep rolling hill contours with elevations ranging between 300 and 1,220 feet above mean sea level (msl). The Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database was consulted and the study area contains seven soils series, including Dapplegray, Lunada, Sepulveda, Thums, Windfetch, Typic Xerorthents, and Zaca (Figure 4, Soils Map, of the BRA). None of these soils are listed as hydric soils by NRCS. The pump station is mapped as Lunada‐Zaca complex, 30 to 75 percent slopes, and the Dapplegray Elementary School Upgrade areas are mapped as Dapplegray‐Urban land‐Lunada complex, 20 to 50 percent slopes. Soils mapped within the pipeline alignment include: 1. Dapplegray‐Urban land complex, 10 to 35 percent slopes, terraced; 2. Dapplegray‐Urban land‐Lunada complex, 20 to 55 percent slopes; 3. Dumps; 4. Lunada‐Zaca complex, 30 to 75 percent slopes; 5. Urban land‐Dapplegray complex, 5 to 20 percent slopes, terraced; 6. Urban land‐Thums‐Windfetch complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes; 7. Urban land‐Typic Xerorthents, calcareous complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes; and 8. Urban land‐Windfetch‐Sepulveda complex, 2 to 9 percent slopes.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐21

Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017

Soils mapped within the construction staging areas include: 1. Dapplegray‐Urban land‐Lunada complex 20 to 55 percent slopes; 2. Dumps; and 3. Urban land‐Thums‐Windfetch complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes. Surrounding land uses generally consist of the residential areas within the Cities of Rolling Hills Estates and Rancho Palos Verdes, Silver Spur Town & Country Shopping Center, Vista Del Norte Reserve, Chadwick School, and Pepperwood Park to the west; residential areas within the City of Rolling Hills Estates, SCBG, and Chandler Preserve to the north; residential areas within the City of Rolling Hills Estates and open space to the east; and residential areas within the Cities of Rolling Hills and Rolling Hills Estates, Dapplegray Elementary School, and Storm Hill Park to the south Plant Communities Descriptions of each of the plant communities found within the study area are provided below and their corresponding California Natural Community Code (CaCodes) assigned by CDFW are in parentheses (CDFW 2010). The locations of each of the plant communities are shown in Figure 5, Plant Communities, of the BRA. Table B‐7, Plant Communities, lists each of the plant communities observed, as well as the acreage within the study area. Representative photographs of plant communities found within the study area are included in Figure 6a, Site Photographs and Figure 6b, Site Photographs, of the BRA.

TABLE B-7 PLANT COMMUNITIES

Plant Communities Total Area (acres) California Brittle Bush Scruba/Non‐native 0.44 Herbaceous Cover California Sagebrush Scrub 0.13 Coyote Brush Scrub 0.14 Lemonade Berry Scruba 7.22 Lemonade Berry Scruba/California Sagebrush Scrub 0.14 Purple Sage Scrub 1.06 Red Willow Thicketa 0.05 Toyon Chaparrala/Ornamental 0.25 Non‐native Grassland 0.02 Ornamental 12.39 Non‐native Herbaceous Cover 4.81 Non‐native Herbaceous Cover/Lemonade Berry 0.14 Scrub Non‐native Herbaceous Cover/Ornamental 11.86 Disturbed 6.19 Disturbed/Ornamental 10.93 Developed 26.29 Developed/Ornamental 28.79 Total 110.85

a These communities are high priority [for conservation] vegetation communities denoted on the CDFW “List of California Terrestrial Natural Communities”.

SOURCE: ESA, 2017

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐22

November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations

California Brittle Bush Scrub (*32.050.00)/Non-native Herbaceous Cover (N/A) California brittle bush scrub/non‐native herbaceous cover consists of California brittle bush (Encelia californica) as the dominant species and Russian thistle (Salsola tragus) as subdominant. Associated native species within this community include purple sage (Salvia leucophylla), ashy‐leaved buckwheat (Eriogonum cinereum), lemonade berry (Rhus integrifolia), and coastal goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii). Associated non‐ native species within this community include shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), black mustard (Brassica nigra), Australian saltbush (Atriplex semibaccata), fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum), and bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis). California brittle bush scrub/non‐native herbaceous cover comprises approximately 0.44 acre within the western portion of the study area along Crenshaw Boulevard. California Sagebrush Scrub (32.010.00) California sagebrush scrub consists of California sagebrush (Artemisia californica) as the dominant species. Associated species include coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), lemonade berry, wild cucumber (Marah macrocarpus), southern California black walnut (Juglans californica), fourwing saltbush (Atriplex lentiformis), pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana), and Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei). Approximately 0.13 acre of California sagebrush scrub occurs within the northeastern and southwestern portions of the study area. Coyote Brush Scrub (32.060.00) Coyote brush scrub consists of coyote brush as the dominant species and comprises approximately 0.14 acre within study area along the western portion along Crenshaw Boulevard and along the Palomino Ranchos Trail. Lemonade Berry Scrub (37.803.00) Lemonade berry scrub consists of lemonade berry as the dominant species with California sagebrush as a subdominant species. Associated native species include purple sage, California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), ashy‐leaved buckwheat, wild cucumber, blue elderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), coastal goldenbush, Canadian horseweed (Erigeron canadensis), giant wild rye (Elymus condensatus), and Douglas’ nightshade (Solanum douglasii). Non‐native species observed within the community include giant reed (Arundo donax), Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta), Aleppo pine (Pinus halepensis), Canary Island date palm (Phoenix canariensis), everblooming acacia (Acacia retinodes), and common fig (Ficus carica). Approximately 7.22 acres of lemonade berry scrub occurs within the northeastern and southwestern portions of the study area. Lemonade Berry Scrub (*37.803.00)/California Sagebrush Scrub (32.010.00) Lemonade berry scrub/California sagebrush scrub consists of lemonade berry and California sagebrush as the dominant species. Additional species observed within this community include black sage (Salvia mellifera), toyon, coastal goldenbush, wild cucumber, and giant reed. Lemonade berry scrub/California sagebrush scrub compromises approximtely 0.14 acre along the western portion of the study area along Crenshaw Boulevard. Purple Sage Scrub (32.090.00) The purple sage scrub consists of purple sage as the dominant species. Associated species within the community include lemonade berry and California sagebrush. Approximately 1.06 acres of purple sage scrub occurs within the western portion of the study area along Crenshaw Boulevard. Red Willow Thicket (*61.205)

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐23

Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017

Red willow thicket consists of red willow (Salix laevigata) as the dominant species, with a subdominance of sandbar willow (Salix exigua), and black willow (Salix gooddingii). Associated species in this community include California gooseberry (Ribes californicum), holly‐leafed cherry (Prunus ilicifolia), mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia), southern California black walnut, California blackberry (Rubus ursinus), poison oak, coyote brush, stinging nettle (Urtica dioica), mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana), tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), castor bean (Ricinus communis), giant reed, and Mexican fan palm. Approximately 0.05 acre of red willow thicket occurs within the central portion of the study area along the Palomino Ranchos Trail. Toyon Chaparral (*37.911.00)/Ornamental (N/A) Toyon chaparral/ornamental consists of toyon as the dominant species and with pampas grass as a subdominant species. Associated species within this community include California sagebrush, Brazilian peppertree (Schinus terebinthifolius), and hottentot fig (Carpobrotus edulis). Toyon chaparral/ornamental comprises approximately 0.25 acre of the study area and is located in the southwestern portion of the study area along Crenshaw Boulevard. Non-native Grassland (N/A) Non‐native grassland is dominated by foxtail chess (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens) and London rocket (Sisymbrium irio). Non‐native grassland comprises approximately 0.02 acre of the study area and is located within the western portion of the study area adjacent to the intersection of Crenshaw Boulevard and Silver Spur Road. Ornamental (N/A) Ornamental areas are comprised mainly of non‐native ornamental species. Associated species within the ornamental community include Peruvian peppertree (Schismus molle), rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis), London plane tree (Platanus × acerifolia), hottentot fig, tree tobacco, shortpod mustard, Brazilian peppertree, milk thistle (Silybum marianum), nettle‐leaved goosefoot (Chenopodium murale), cheeseweed (Malva parvifolia), mimosa tree (Albizia julibrissin), blue gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus), castor bean, fennel, common sowthistle (Sonchus oleraceus), Aleppo pine, oleander (Nerium oleander), Canarian sea lavender (Limonium perezii), fern leaved lavender (Limonium sinuatum), English ivy (Hedera helix), bigleaf periwinkle (Vinca major), loquat (Eriobotrys sp.), blue elf aloe (Aloe ‘Blue Elf’), crimson bottlebrush (Callistemon citrinus), olive (Olea europa), toyon, giant yucca (Yucca elephantipes), narrow‐leaf bedstraw (Galium angustifolium), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), fern pine tree (Afrocarpus gracilior), Jacaranda tree (Jacaranda mimosifolia), bougainvillea (Bougainvillea buttiana), African daisy (Arctotis venusta), golden bamboo (Phyllostachys aurea), Cape honeysuckle (Tecoma capensis), matted sandmat (Euphorbia serpens), Bermuda buttercup (Oxalis pes‐caprae), Asiatic dayflower (Commelina communis), and silk‐oak (Grevillea robusta). Ornamental comprises approximately 12.39acres and is located throughout the study area. Non-native Herbaceous Cover (N/A) Non‐native herbaceous cover is found in area heavily disturbed by human activities, such as roadsides, graded fields, and manufactured slopes, and frequently are weedy as a result of non‐native plants that are introduced as a consequence. Within the study area, non‐native species observed include cheeseweed, ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), Mexican sprangletop (Leptochloa uninervia), giant reed, longbeak stork’s bill (Erodium botrys), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), common sowthistle, black mustard, bristly ox tongue (Helminthotheca echioides), Jersey cudweed (Pseudognaphalium luteoalbum), wild radish (Raphanus sativus), Bermuda buttercup, and African senna (Senna didymobotrya). A few native species were also observed scattered throughout this community, including California poppy (Eschscholzia californica), California sagebrush, southern California black walnut, arroyo lupine (Lupinus succulentus), and mulefat. Non‐native herbaceous cover comprises approximately 4.81 acres and is located throughout the study area.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐24

November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations

Non-native Herbaceous Cover (N/A)/Lemonade Berry Scrub (*37.803.00) Non‐native herbaceous cover/lemonade berry scrub consists of Russian thistle as the dominant species and with lemonade berry as a subdominant species. Shortpod mustard is also found within this community. Non‐ native herbaceous cover/lemonade berry scrub comprises approximately 0.14 acre and is located in the western portion of the study area along Crenshaw Boulevard. Non-native Herbaceous Cover (N/A)/Ornamental (N/A) Non‐native herbaceous cover/ornamental consists of non‐native species, such as cheeseweed, ripgut grass, and foxtail barley (Hordeum murinum) as the dominant species. Other associated non‐native herbaceous species observed within this community included milk thistle, castor bean, Bermuda buttercup, wild oat (Avena sp.), London rocket, and shepherd’s purse (Capsella bursa‐pastoris). Ornamental species are subdominant within this community and include species such as giant reed, Mexican fan palm, Peruvian peppertree, tree tobacco, and blue gum eucalyptus. A few native species are scattered throughout this community, including lemonade berry, California sagebrush, wild cucumber, toyon, and common bedstraw (Galium aparine). Non‐native herbaceous cover/ornamental comprises approximately 11.86 acres and is located in the eastern portion of the study area along the access road that extends along the western side of Dapplegray Elementary School. Disturbed (N/A) Disturbed areas consist of areas heavily disturbed by human activities, including dirt roads with little to no vegetation. A few non‐native species were observed within the disturbed areas, including milk thistle, cheeseweed, and ripgut brome. Disturbed areas comprise approximately 6.19 acres and are located throughout the study area. Disturbed/Ornamental (N/A) Disturbed/ornamental comprises approximately 10.93 acres and is found throughout the study area. Developed (N/A) Developed areas consist of man‐made structures such as homes and buildings and these areas comprise approximately 26.29 acres within the study area. Developed/Ornamental (N/A) The majority of the study area is comprised of developed/ornamental areas. Developed/ornamental comprise approximately 28.79 acres throughout the study area. General Plant Inventory The plant communities discussed above are comprised of a variety of plant species. A list of all plant species observed during the field visits to the project is provided in Appendix A, Floral and Faunal Compendia, of the BRA. Special‐status plant species occurring or potentially occurring within the study area are discussed below. General Wildlife Inventory The plant communities discussed above provide habitat for common wildlife species. A list of all wildlife species observed during the field visits to the study area is provided in Appendix A of the BRA. Special‐status wildlife species occurring or potentially occurring are discussed below. Wildlife Movement Overview

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐25

Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017

Wildlife corridors link together areas of suitable habitat that are otherwise separated by rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or human disturbance. The fragmentation of open space areas by urbanization creates isolated “islands” of wildlife habitat. In the absence of habitat linkages that allow movement to adjoining open space areas, various studies have concluded that some wildlife species, especially the larger and more mobile mammals, will not likely persist over time in fragmented or isolated habitat areas because they prohibit the infusion of new individuals and genetic. Corridors effectively act as links between different populations of a species. A group of smaller populations (termed “demes”) linked together via a system of corridors is termed a “metapopulation.” The long‐term health of each deme within the metapopulation is dependent upon its size and the frequency of interchange of individuals (immigration vs. emigration). The smaller the deme, the more important immigration becomes, because prolonged inbreeding with the same individuals can reduce genetic variability. Immigrant individuals that move into the deme from adjoining demes mate with individuals and supply that deme with new genes and gene combinations that increase overall genetic diversity. An increase in a population’s genetic variability is generally associated with an increase in a population’s health and long‐term viability. Corridors mitigate the effects of habitat fragmentation by (1) allowing animals to move between remaining habitats, which allows depleted populations to be replenished and promotes genetic diversity; (2) providing escape routes from fire, predators, and human disturbances, thus reducing the risk that catastrophic events(such as fires or disease) will result in population or local species extinction; and (3) serving as travel routes for individual animals as they move within their home ranges in search of food, water, mates, and other needs. Wildlife movement activities usually fall into one of three movement categories: (1) dispersal (e.g., juvenile animals from natal areas, individuals extending range distributions); (2) seasonal migration; and, (3) movements related to home range activities (foraging for food or water, defending territories, searching for mates, breeding areas, or cover). Although the nature of each of these types of movement is species specific, large open spaces will generally support a diverse wildlife community representing all types of movement. Each type of movement may also be represented at a variety of scales from non‐migratory movement of amphibians, reptiles, and some birds on a “local” level to home ranges encompassing many square‐miles for large mammals moving on a “regional” level. A number of terms have been used in various wildlife movement studies, such as “wildlife corridor,” “travel route,” and “wildlife crossing” to refer to areas in which wildlife move from one area to another. To clarify the meaning of these terms and facilitate the discussion on wildlife movement in this study, these terms are defined as follows: Travel Route: A landscape feature (such as a ridgeline, drainage, canyon, or riparian strip) within a larger natural habitat area that is used frequently by animals to facilitate movement and provide access to necessary resources (e.g., water, food, cover, den areas). The travel route is generally preferred because it provides the least amount of topographic resistance in moving from one area to another; it contains adequate food, water, and/or cover while moving between habitat areas; and provides a relatively direct link between target habitat areas. Wildlife Corridor: A piece of habitat, usually linear in nature, that connects two or more habitat patches that would otherwise be fragmented or isolated from one another. Wildlife corridors are usually bounded by urban land areas or other areas unsuitable for wildlife. The corridor generally contains suitable cover, food, and/or water to support species and facilitate movement while in the corridor. Larger, landscape‐level corridors (often referred to as “habitat or landscape linkages”) can provide both transitory and resident habitat for a variety of species.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐26

November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations

Wildlife Crossing: A small, narrow area, relatively short in length and generally constricted in nature, that allows wildlife to pass under or through an obstacle or barrier that otherwise hinders or prevents movement. Crossings typically are manmade and include culverts, underpasses, drainage pipes, and tunnels to provide access across or under roads, highways, pipelines, or other physical obstacles. These are often “choke points” along a movement corridor. Wildlife Movement Within the Study Area The study area is within a highly developed area in the northern portion of the Palos Verdes Peninsula. The majority of the study area is within and adjacent to existing roadways and equestrian trails vegetated with ornamental landscaping (12.39 acres). There are patches of native habitat along the slopes adjacent to Crenshaw Boulevard (9.38 acres) and a small patch of red willow thicket (0.05 acre) in the downstream portion of Drainage B. The remaining vegetation consists of non‐native herbaceous species (16.83 acres) as dominant or sparsely vegetated disturbed areas (16.68 acres). Due to the surrounding development and lack of direct connectivity to larger areas of higher quality habitat, wildlife movement on the study area is limited. The study area is located approximately 2.3 miles west of I‐110 and 5.0 miles south of I‐405. As shown on Figure 7, Regional Aerial Photograph, of the BRA, the study area is immediately surrounded by residential areas and commercial centers within the Cities of Rolling Hills Estates, Rolling Hills, and Rancho Palos Verdes and unincorporated Los Angeles County. The few open space areas adjacent to and within the vicinity of the study area are fragmented by urban sprawl. Since the land surrounding the study area is primarily surrounded by development, the surrounding areas do not support large patches of natural communities that would provide habitat, resources, and cover for wildlife. As previously described, wildlife movement activities occur at a variety of scales from a “local” level to a “regional” level. Regional movement through the study area is unlikely due to limited native vegetation (e.g., for habitat and cover) and development/disturbance present on the study area and surrounding vicinity. There may be some potential for local movement via the fragmented natural drainages on the study area, including Brent Spring Canyon and Drainage B/B2 located in the eastern portion of the study area, and within native vegetation along the slopes adjacent to Crenshaw Boulevard. Brent Spring Canyon is an intermittent streambed that originates in the Rolling Hills and meanders through residential properties. The upstream portion of this drainage is constrained by residential development and crosses under a heavily trafficked road (Palos Verdes Drive North), thus reducing its use by wildlife for movement within the region. Once Brent Spring Canyon exits the study area boundary, the drainage flows for only a short distance off‐site before sheet‐flowing down Phillips Canyon Trail. The drainage reinitiates on‐site as Drainage B2 and ultimately flows into Drainage B. Drainage B initiates east of the intersection of Rolling Hills Road and an equestrian trail located between the backyards of several residences. These on‐site drainages are dominated by ornamental vegetation with little to no understory, with the exception of a small red willow thicket in the downstream portion of Drainage B. The red willow thicket is persistent downstream as Drainage B meanders through Chandler Preserve. However, the downstream portion of Drainage B has been heavily impacted by the renovation of the Rolling Hills Country Club. Due the presence of surrounding residential development, the lack of downstream connectivity to open space, and minimal understory for coverage, it is unlikely that these drainages facilitate regional wildlife movement. Although Crenshaw Boulevard is an arterial road that traverses through the Palos Verdes Peninsula, it does support some remnant patches of native vegetation along the steep slopes. The vegetated hillsides on the eastern side of Crenshaw Boulevard connects via a narrow path to some open space within Westfield Park and Storm Hill Park, which are located approximately 0.10 mile to the south of the proposed pump station. However, both of these parks are relatively small and completely surrounded by existing residences. The largest open space area within the vicinity of the study area is to the south of Crenshaw Boulevard, which

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐27

Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017 encompasses a number of parks and reserves including Del Cerro Park, Filiorum Reserve, Three Sisters Reserve, and Portuguese Bend Reserve. Some of the open space area is fragmented by sprawling residential areas. The vegetated slopes do not extend beyond the intersection of Crenshaw Boulevard and Crest Road, and therefore, the study area does not directly connect to the open space area. Since the vegetated slopes along Crenshaw Boulevard do not directly connect to larger open space areas, the study area does not facilitate regional wildlife movement. Furthermore, the study area is not within any linkages identified by the South Coast Missing Linkages report; the nearest linkage design identified is for the Santa Monica – Sierra Madre Connection located approximately 30 miles to the northwest. Since the study area is not identified as a linkage by the South Coast Wildlands, and it does not support habitat that connects two or more habitat patches that would otherwise be fragmented or isolated from one another, the study area is not considered a wildlife corridor. The study area may provide limited opportunities for wildlife movement, more likely for local wildlife movement as described below. Movement on a smaller or “local” scale could occur within the study area for species that are less restricted in movement pathway requirements or are adapted to urban areas (e.g., raccoon [Procyon lotor], coyote [Canis latrans], and bird species in general). Although the study area is within and adjacent to existing roadways and equestrian trails, the study area does support patches of native and non‐native vegetation that wildlife can use for cover and resources. As such, the study area likely supports some local wildlife movement and/or nearby areas for foraging and shelter. Data gathered from the biological survey indicates that the study area contains habitat that supports common species of invertebrates, reptiles, birds, and small mammals. Populations of animals such as insects, reptiles, small mammals, and a few bird species may find all their resource requirements without moving far or outside of the study area at all. The home range and average dispersal distance of many of these species may be entirely contained within the study area and immediate vicinity. Occasionally, individuals expanding their home range or dispersing from their parental range could attempt to move outside of the study area, if feasible, based on the surrounding restrictions to movement from development (as mentioned above). In summary, the study area may support some limited live‐in and movement habitat for common species adapted to urban areas on a local scale (i.e., some live‐in and at least marginal movement habitat for invertebrates, reptiles, birds, and small mammal species). However, due to extensive surrounding development and lack of connectivity to larger open space areas, the study area likely provides little to no function to facilitate movement for wildlife species on a regional scale and it is not identified as a regionally important dispersal or seasonal migration corridor by South Coast Wildlands. Jurisdictional Waters Based on the jurisdictional delineations conducted on January 26, 2011; March 31, 2016; and February 16, 2017, the approximately 110.85‐acre study area supports five drainage features referred to in this report as Drainage Complex A (includes Drainages A, A1, and A1.1), Drainage Complex B (includes Drainages B and B2), Crenshaw Ditch East, Crenshaw Ditch West, and Brent Spring Canyon. In total, the study area was determined to support approximately 0.349 acre/5,662 linear feet (LF) of USACE/RWQCB “waters of the U.S.” and 0.799 acre of CDFW jurisdictional streambed (Figures 8A through 8D, Jurisdictional Features, of the BRA). No wetlands, vernal pools, or other special aquatic sites where observed within the study area. Photographs of the drainage features are provided in Figures 9A through 9D, Jurisdictional Features Photographs, of the BRA. Table B‐8, Jurisdictional Features, provides a summary of the jurisdictional features assessed. A description of the drainages is provided below. A separate jurisdictional delineation

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐28

November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations report with a map illustrating the location, extent, and acreage of all jurisdictional features was prepared and is attached as Appendix B, Investigation of Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. and State, of the BRA.

TABLE B-8 JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES

USACE/RWQCB CDFW Length Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Flow Drainage Name (feet) (acres) a (acres) a Classification

Drainage Complex A Drainage A 85 0.004 0.008 Intermittent Drainage A1 472 0.011 0.033 Intermittent Drainage A1.1 61 0.001 0.004 Ephemeral Subtotal 618 0.016 0.045 Drainage Complex B Drainage B 869 0.049 0.137 Intermittent Drainage B2 80 0.004 0.010 Intermittent Subtotal 949 0.053 0.147 Crenshaw Ditch East 1,356 0.031 0.094 Ephemeral Crenshaw Ditch West 2,535 0.179 0.433 Ephemeral Brent Spring Canyon 238 0.073 0.098 Intermittent Total Pipeline Study Area 5,696 0.352 0.817

a Regulatory agency jurisdictional acreages typically overlap and are not additive (e.g., CDFW acreages are routinely inclusive of USACE jurisdictional acreages).

SOURCE: PCR 2011 and 2016; ESA 2017

Drainage Complex A The pipeline alignment extends for approximately 0.60 mile along the Botanic Garden Trail, which is an equestrian trail that extends from Crenshaw Boulevard southeast to Rolling Hills Road. Drainage Complex A was observed along the Botanic Garden Trail. The trail traverses moderate to steep foothill contours and supports a low point where an unvegetated streambed meanders through surrounding residences to the north, eventually terminating into a storm drain just prior to the intersection with the equestrian trail. The majority of the Botanic Garden Trail supports a maintained equestrian trail with little to no vegetation. However, some non‐native grasses within the margins of the trail right‐of‐way and non‐native ornamental vegetation associated with private yards was observed within this portion of the alignment. Soils associated with Drainage Complex A are primarily comprised of well‐drained coarse sandy loam. Drainage A Drainage A is an unvegetated intermittent streambed that historically conveyed flow from Sepulveda Canyon. Drainage A is a USGS mapped blueline stream. The drainage meanders through residential properties and enters the study area near the southern boundary. Drainage A extends toward the north/northeast for approximately 85 LF, prior to discharging into a recently constructed storm drain system at the boundary of the equestrian trail encompassed by the study area. Much of the upstream

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐29

Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017 developed watershed has diverted flows into the storm drain system resulting in reduced hydrology within the Drainage A streambed. As a result, Drainage A is somewhat remnant in nature, which may explain the dry unvegetated conditions observed within the streambed. Based on review of satellite imagery following the field examination, it was determined that the storm drain conveys runoff off‐site beneath paved areas associated with the SCBG to the south, where runoff is collected into a pond that discharges into an intermittent streambed through an overflow spillway. The intermittent streambed terminates into a pipe inlet that carries runoff into the storm drain system that ultimately conveys flow to the Pacific Ocean via the Dominguez Channel. Soils associated with Drainage A are classified as sandy loam. Drainage A exhibits an OHWM width of 2 feet and supports approximately 0.004 acre of non‐wetland “waters of the U.S.” The width of the streambed in Drainage A averages 4 feet based on top‐of‐bank conditions and supports approximately 0.008 acre of streambed potentially subject to CDFW jurisdiction. Drainage A1 Drainage A1 is a concrete trapezoidal drainage feature that appears to be excavated in uplands and is a USGS mapped blueline stream. The concrete drainage runs parallel to the equestrian trail as part of the SCBG property and extends down a moderate slope for 472 LF prior to entering a pipe that conveys flow toward the storm drain associated with Drainage A. The channel drains an upstream area historically associated with Agua Magna Canyon via 1) sheetflow from the terminus of Rawhide Lane directly to the south/southwest, and 2) a tributary concrete drainage feature that appears to convey runoff from a sub‐ surface storm drain beneath Horse Bridle Trail described as Drainage A1.1 below. Drainage A1 exhibits an OHWM width of 1 foot and supports approximately 0.011 acre of non‐wetland “waters of the U.S.” The streambed width in Drainage A1 averages 3 feet based on the top‐of‐bank conditions and supports approximately 0.033 acre potentially subject to CDFW jurisdiction. Drainage A1.1 Drainage A1.1 is a small concrete trapezoidal channel that originates from a pipe beneath the equestrian trail. The pipe outlets into the channel which is located on the botanic garden property to the south and extends for approximately 25 LF prior to joining Drainage A1 which is also a concrete trapezoidal channel. Drainage A1.1 appears to convey flow from a storm drain associated with the now developed Agua Magna Canyon to the south beneath Horse Bridle Trail. Drainage A1.1 exhibits an OHWM width of 1 foot and supports approximately 0.001 acre of non‐wetland “waters of the U.S.” The streambed channel width in Drainage A1.1 averages 3 feet based on the top‐of‐bank conditions and supports approximately 0.004 acre potentially subject to CDFW jurisdiction. Non‐Jurisdictional V‐Ditch A small concrete v‐ditch occurs on the botanic garden property to the north of the Botanic Garden Trail. The v‐ditch is located within, and extends along, a retaining wall/planter structure that appears to have been recently constructed as part of the botanic garden facilities. The v‐ditch clearly appears to have been excavated in uplands, and drains only uplands associated with a small slope. Therefore, this feature does not support biological/hydrological function and values and would likely not be regulated by the resource agencies Drainage Complex B Drainage B begins approximately 370 LF east of the intersection of Rolling Hills Road and an equestrian trail located between the backyards of several residences. Two corrugated metal pipes (CMP) discharge sheetflow from surrounding upland areas into the headwaters of this drainage. The drainage then extends for 1,108 LF down a moderate slope toward the east/northeast as an unvegetated roadside ditch. The

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐30

November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations

Drainage B ditch is a mapped USGS blueline stream and supports a series of small CMP culverts beneath residential driveways that provide entry to the backyards of adjacent properties to the north. Drainage B then extends for another 118 LF toward the east prior to exiting the northern study area boundary as a relatively incised intermittent streambed that supports a small patch of red willow thicket vegetation. Drainage B exhibits an OHWM ranging from 2‐8 feet, while the streambed and associated riparian vegetation in the channel range from 4‐40 feet in width. Soils associated with Drainage B are sandy loam. Drainage B contains a total of 0.046 acre (835 LF) of non‐wetland waters of the U.S., and 0.119 acre of streambed and associated riparian vegetation potentially subject to CDFW jurisdiction. Drainage B2 Drainage B2 includes a small downstream portion of Brent Spring Canyon that is hydrologically connected to the upstream portion through sheetflow that occurs along Phillips Canyon Trail. The drainage enters the southern project boundary and extends for 45 LF before entering a reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) that discharges into the intermittent portion of Drainage B. Drainage B2 primarily supports a dense stand of non‐ native invasive Arundo donax vegetation. Drainage B2 streambed exhibits an OHWM averaging 2 feet in width, while the streambed averages 5 feet in width. Soils associated with Drainage B2 are sandy loam. Drainage B2 contains a total of 0.004 acre (80 LF) of non‐wetland “waters of the U.S.”, and 0.010 acre of streambed potentially subject to CDFW jurisdiction. Crenshaw Ditches East and West Crenshaw Boulevard is a heavily trafficked road that is bordered by steep hills to the east and west within the study area. Roadside ditches adjacent to Crenshaw Boulevard drain the hillsides and road runoff. Water drains from the south end of Crenshaw Boulevard and is collected within the roadside ditches that likely carry the water under into the storm drain system under Crenshaw Boulevard, which flows into a concrete‐ line channel located on the west side of Crenshaw Boulevard just south of Palos Verdes Drive North. The channel carries runoff into the storm drain system that ultimately conveys flow to the Pacific Ocean via the Dominguez Channel. Five roadside ditches were observed along the west side of Crenshaw Boulevard and six roadside ditches were observed along the east side of Crenshaw Boulevard. Six of the ditches, mostly located near the south end of Crenshaw Boulevard, are earthen ditches while the remaining five ditches located near the north end of Crenshaw are concrete‐lined. Four of the concrete‐line ditches are v‐ditches while the most northern ditch on the west side of Crenshaw Boulevard is a larger concrete‐lined channel that carries the runoff into the storm drain system, eventually connecting to Dominguez Channel. Crenshaw Ditch East supports a total of 0.031 acre (1,357 LF) of non‐wetland “waters of the U.S.”, and 0.094 acre of streambed potentially subject to CDFW jurisdiction. Crenshaw Ditch West supports a total of 0.179 acre (2,535 LF) of non‐wetland “waters of the U.S.”, and 0.433 acre of streambed potentially subject to CDFW jurisdiction. Brent Spring Canyon Brent Spring Canyon is an intermittent streambed that originates in the Rolling Hills approximately 0.75 mile to the southwest of Palos Verdes Drive North. The drainage meanders northeast through residential properties and crosses under Palos Verdes Drive North. After crossing under Palos Verdes Drive North, the drainage continues flowing northeast for approximately 990 LF and enters the study area along the western boundary of the road improvement area. Brent Spring Canyon flows for approximately 238 LF within portions of the study area (i.e., slope improvement areas and road improvement area), exiting along the western boundary. The drainage continues to flow off‐site for approximately 111 LF, after which it sheetflows along Phillips Canyon Trail and appears to drain into Drainage B2. Brent Spring Canyon is

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐31

Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017 dominated by ornamental trees with no understory and much of the streambed was covered in leaf litter. Soils associated with Brent Spring Canyon are classified as fine sand and some cobble was observed in the low‐flow channel. Brent Spring Canyon exhibits an OHWM width of 12‐14 feet and supports approximately total of 0.073 acre (238 LF) of non‐wetland “waters of the U.S.” The width of the streambed in Brent Spring Canyon averages 16‐18 feet based on top‐of‐bank conditions and supports approximately 0.098 acre of streambed potentially subject to CDFW jurisdiction. Special‐Status Biological Resources The following discussion describes the plant and wildlife species present, or potentially present, within the study area that have been afforded special recognition by federal, state, or local resource conservation agencies and organizations. These species have declining or limited population sizes, usually resulting from habitat loss. Also discussed are habitats that are unique, of relatively limited distribution, or of particular value to wildlife. Protected special‐status species are classified by either federal or state resource management agencies, or both, as threatened or endangered, under provisions of the Federal and State Endangered Species Acts (FESA and CESA, respectively). Sensitive Plant Communities The study area supports five plant communities that are considered sensitive habitats by CDFW totaling 8.10 acres, including 0.44 acre of California brittle bush scrub/non‐native herbaceous cover, 7.22 acres of lemonade berry scrub, 0.14 acre of lemonade berry scrub/California sagebrush scrub, 0.05 acre of red willow thicket, and 0.25 acre of toyon chaparral/ornamental. Special-Status Plant Species Special‐status plants include those listed, or candidates for listing, by the USFWS and CDFW; and species considered special‐status by the CNPS (Ranks 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B). Several special‐status and CNPS‐ranked species were reported in the vicinity based on CNDDB and CNPS, totaling 32 species within the 7‐quadrangle search (as indicated in Appendix C, Special‐Status Plant Species, of the BRA). Of the 32 species reported in the vicinity of the site, 15 species were identified as having a potential to occur within the study area based on the literature review and existing habitat, as listed in Appendix C of the BRA. Focused special‐status plant surveys were conducted on June 22, 2011; September 27, 2011; May 24, 2016; and August 15, 2016, during the appropriate blooming periods. No special‐status plant species were observed within the study area during the focused special‐status plant surveys. Special-Status Wildlife Species Special‐status wildlife species include those species listed as Endangered or Threatened under the FESA or CESA, candidates for listing by the USFWS or CDFW, and species of special concern pursuant to CDFW. Several special‐status wildlife species were reported in the vicinity based on CNDDB, totaling 27 species within the 7‐quadrangle search. A total of seven species were identified as having a potential to occur within the study area based on the literature review and habitats mapped within the study area, as listed in Appendix D, Special‐Status Wildlife Species, of the BRA. Due to the presence of potentially suitable habitat, focused surveys for Palos Verdes blue butterfly, coastal California gnatcatcher, least Bell’s vireo, and southwestern willow flycatcher, and a burrowing owl habitat assessment were conducted within the original pipeline alignment. In addition, focused burrowing owl surveys were conducted within the Palos Verdes Landfill staging area in 2017. Potential for foraging and nesting migratory bird and raptor species were also analyzed due to potential habitat within the study area or within the vicinity (see Appendix D of the BRA). The species with a potential to occur in the study area are

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐32

November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations discussed below, including the results of burrowing owl surveys, in addition to the migratory birds and raptors assessment. Species Observed on the Study Area Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly: This butterfly is a federally endangered species. This species is restricted to coastal scrub habitat on the seaward side of Palos Verdes Hills in the Los Angeles County. Palos Verdes blue butterfly host species are limited to deerweed and Santa Barbara milk vetch (Astragalus trichopodus var. lonchus). A total of five Palos Verdes blue butterfly individuals were observed in 2011 within the original pipeline alignment. The butterflies were observed in Chandler Preserve, just outside and to the east of the study area. Although no deerweed was found within the current study area, the original pipeline alignment study area contained a few individuals of deerweed, some of which were planted. A female Palos Verdes blue butterfly was observed ovipositing a deerweed plant within a stand of deerweed just outside of the original pipeline alignment study area. No Santa Barbara milk vetch was observed within study area, although the original pipeline alignment supports a single individual. The observed butterflies are believed to be captive reared adults that were released into Chandler Preserve a few days prior to the 2011 focused surveys. No individuals were observed during the 2016 focused surveys. The results of the 2011 and 2016 focused surveys are also outlined in separate survey reports attached as Appendix E, Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly Focused Survey Reports, of the BRA. Species with the Potential to Occur on the Study Area Silvery Legless Lizard (Anniella pulchra pulchra): This reptile species is a state species of special concern. This species prefers loose soils within riparian and woodland habitats. Habitats include chaparral, pine‐oak woodland and sycamore or cottonwood woodlands. Silvery legless lizard was determined to have a low potential to occur on the study area based on the presence of potentially suitable habitat is located within Brent Spring Canyon. The banks of this drainage support loose, moist soil due to canopy cover provided by large ornamental trees within the drainage. The nearest CNDDB occurrence record of this species was recorded in 2009, approximately 1.9 miles to the northeast of the study area in the City of Lomita. Burrowing Owl: This bird species is a state species of special concern and prefers coastal prairie, coastal scrub, Great Basin scrub, Mojavean desert scrub, Sonoran Desert scrub, valley and foothill grassland and disturbed habitats. Burrowing owl was determined to have a moderate potential to nest and forage on the Palos Verdes Landfill staging area based on the presence of suitable habitat identified during the 2017 habitat assessment, including disturbed, low‐growing vegetation, bare ground, and a few small fossorial mammal burrows. Burrowing owl surveys were conducted during the 2017 survey window in accordance with CDFW protocol. No burrowing owls were observed during focused surveys. The nearest CNDDB occurrence record of this species was recorded in 2011, approximately 12.75 miles to the northwest of the study area at Ballona Wetlands. One observation has also been recorded in eBird in 2007 that was 1.3 miles to the south of the study area in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The results of the 2017 focused surveys are detailed in a separate survey report attached as Appendix F, Burrowing Owl Focused Survey and Habitat Assessment Reports, of the BRA. Although suitable habitat (i.e., annual grasslands and arid scrublands characterized by low‐growing vegetation) was identified within the original pipeline alignment during the 2016 habitat assessment, no suitable burrows or burrow surrogates (greater than 11 centimeters in diameter and greater than 150

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐33

Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017 centimeters in depth) were identified. Additionally, no burrowing owls or burrowing owl sign were observed. Therefore, due to the lack of suitable burrows and/or burrow surrogates, focused surveys were not required. The results of the 2016 burrowing owl habitat assessment are also outlined in a separate survey report attached as Appendix F, Burrowing Owl Focused Survey and Habitat Assessment Reports, of the BRA. Species Not Expected to Occur on the Study Area Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus): This bird species is a federally and state endangered species. This species prefers wet meadows and riparian woodlands that contain water and low growing willow thickets. Due to the presence of potentially suitable habitat within the original pipeline alignment, southwestern willow flycatcher was determined to have a potential to occur. The original pipeline alignment supports a few small patches of red willow thicket within Chandler Preserve, just outside and to the east of the study area. The study area also supports a small patch (0.05 acre) of red willow thicket within the downstream portion of Drainage B. The upstream portion of Drainage B does not support suitable habitat for this species and is dominated by disturbed/ornamental vegetation. No southwestern willow flycatchers were observed or detected during focused surveys conducted in 2011 and 2016. Therefore, the study area and the original pipeline alignment do not currently support southwestern willow flycatcher. This species has not been recorded on CNDDB within the vicinity of the study since 1895. The results of the 2011 and 2016 southwestern willow flycatcher focused surveys are also outlined in a separate survey report attached as Appendix G, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Focused Survey Reports, of the BRA. Least Bell’s Vireo: This bird species is listed as federally and state endangered species. This species prefers riparian habitats including riparian forests, riparian scrub, and riparian woodland, usually dominated by willow species. Due to the presence of potentially suitable habitat within the original pipeline alignment, least Bell’s vireo was determined to have a potential to occur. The original pipeline alignment supports a few small patches of red willow thicket within Chandler Preserve, just outside and to the east of the study area. The study area supports a small patch (0.05 acre) of red willow thicket within the downstream portion of Drainage B. The upstream portion of Drainage B does not support suitable habitat for this species and is dominated by disturbed/ornamental vegetation. No least Bell’s vireos were observed or detected during focused surveys conducted in 2011 and 2016. Therefore, the study area and the original pipeline alignment do not currently support least Bell’s vireo. Additionally, this species has not been recorded on CNDDB within the vicinity of the study since 1900. The results of the 2011 and 2016 least Bell’s vireo focused surveys are also outlined in a separate survey report attached as Appendix H, Least Bell’s Vireo Focused Survey Reports, of the BRA. Coastal California Gnatcatcher: This bird species is listed as federally threatened and is a state species of special concern. This species prefers coastal bluff scrub and coastal scrub habitats, particularly where California sagebrush is the dominant plant. Based on the presence of suitable habitat on the study area, including California sagebrush scrub and purple sage scrub, coastal California gnatcatcher was determined to have a potential to occur within the study area. Additionally, small portions of the study area are within designated critical habitat mapped by USFWS as shown in Figure B‐4, USFWS Critical Habitat.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐34

Study Area !( CNDDB Coastal California Gnatcatcher Records USFWS Critical Habitats PVB - Palos Verdes blue butterfly (Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdensis) - 7/2/1980 CAGN - Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) - 12/19/2007

Study Area

!(

!( !( !( !(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

0 2 N Miles Path:U:\GIS-PCR\GIS_ACTIVE\Cal_Water_Palos_Verdes\Projects\2017 - BRA Report\Fig10 - USFWSCritical Habitat --17x1109-25-17.mxd, sgeissler 7/12/2017

SOURCE: USFWS; CNDDB; Open Street Map, 2017; NAIP, 2016 (Aerial). Palos Verdes Peninsula Water Reliability Project Figure B-4 USFWS Critical Habitat Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017

This species was recorded in CNDDB in two locations adjacent to study area or within the immediate vicinity. In 2006, two coastal California gnatcatchers were observed along Indian Peak Road northwest of Crenshaw Boulevard, approximately 450 feet northwest of the study area (near the southwesternmost portion of the study area). In 1980, one to two pairs were observed near Sunnyridge Road along Agua Manga Canyon within an area that is currently a part of Westfield Park and Storm Hill Park (at the intersection of Crenshaw Boulevard and Silver Spur Road near the southwestern portion of the study area). This 1980 observation overlaps with the study area; although there is a small patch of native purple sage scrub mapped within this area, the majority of the study area that overlaps with the 1980 occurrence currently consists of native lemonade berry scrub, non‐native herbaceous cover, ornamental vegetation, and disturbed areas. In addition, during a survey on January 11, 2016 to update the vegetation map for the original pipeline alignment, a coastal California gnatcatcher was heard off‐site in the distance to the north within the Chandler Preserve (north of the Rolling Hills Little League Lower Fields, but outside of the study area). However, no coastal California gnatcatchers were detected on the study area during the focused surveys conducted in 2011 and 2016 in accordance with USFWS protocols. Therefore, the study area does not currently support coastal California gnatcatchers. Although there are some patches of marginally suitable habitat on the study area, these patches are small, isolated patches within the overall marginal habitat. The results of the 2011 and 2016 coastal California gnatcatcher focused surveys are also outlined in a separate survey report attached as Appendix I, California Gnatcatcher Focused Survey Reports, of the BRA. Western Mastiff Bat (Eumops perotis californicus): This bat species is a state species of special concern and is associated with chaparral, cismontane woodlands, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland habitats. This species roosts in cliff faces and occasionally small crevices in large boulders and buildings and primarily feeds on large moths. The study area does not support western mastiff bat’s preferred roosting habitat (cliffs and rock crevices). However, there is a low potential for this species to use some of the limited open areas on the study area for foraging only. Bats in this family are known to be strong fliers and can fly long distances to forage. There is a probability that individuals may travel from roosts to forage on insects on the site, but this potential is considered low based on the high level of human disturbance on the study area and surrounding development. The nearest CNDDB occurrence record is from1993 approximately 6 miles to the north of the study area in the City of Gardena. Migratory Birds and Raptors The study area supports potential nesting and foraging habitat for songbirds and potential foraging habitat for raptors. Several common species of birds were observed within the study area, including raptor species (American kestrel [Falco sparverius] and red‐tailed hawk [Buteo jamaicensis]) and songbird species (Say’s phoebe [Sayornis saya], bushtit [Psaltriparus minimus], and song sparrow [Melospiza melodia]). A complete list of bird species observed within the study area is listed in Appendix A of the BRA. In addition, 12 special‐ status bird species were recorded within the 7‐quadrangle CNDDB search area and focused surveys were conducted for four (4) of the species (see Appendix D of the BRA). Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐36

November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations

Special‐Status Plant Species Impacts to the study area would result in the direct removal of numerous common plant species; a list of plant species observed within the study area is included in Appendix A of the BRA. Common plant species present within the study area occur in large numbers throughout the region and their removal does not meet the significance thresholds. Therefore, impacts to common plant species would not be considered a significant impact and no mitigation measures are required.

Of the 32 special‐status plant species identified in available databases as occurring in the project vicinity (see Existing Conditions above, Special‐Status Plant Species, and Appendix C of the BRA), 17 species are not expected to occur within the study area due to the lack of suitable habitat or because the study area is outside the known distribution or elevation range for the species. The remaining 15 special‐status plant species were determined to have a potential to occur on‐site; however, none of these species are expected to occur since focused survey results were negative. As such, no impacts to special‐status plant species would occur as a result of the Project; therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

Special‐Status Wildlife Species Development of the study area would result in the disruption and removal of habitat and the loss and displacement of common wildlife species. A list of wildlife species observed within the study area is included in Appendix A of the BRA. Due to the limited amount of native habitat to be permanently removed (0.07 acre of lemonade berry scrub) and the level of existing disturbance from human activity within the vicinity (e.g., nearby development), these impacts would not be expected to reduce the general wildlife populations below self‐sustaining levels within the region and impacts to common wildlife species do not meet the significance thresholds. Therefore, impacts to common wildlife species would not be considered a significant impact and no mitigation measures are required.

Special‐status wildlife species include those species listed as Endangered or Threatened under the FESA or CESA, candidates for listing by the USFWS or CDFW, and species of special concern pursuant to CDFW. Several special‐status wildlife species were reported in the vicinity based on CNDDB, totaling 27 species within the 7‐quadrangle search. Seven species were identified as having a potential to occur within the study area based on the literature review and habitats mapped within the study area, as listed in Appendix D of the BRA.

Of the 27 special‐status wildlife species identified in available databases as occurring in the project vicinity (see Existing Conditions above, Special‐Status Wildlife Species, and Appendix D of the BRA), 20 are not expected to occur within the study area due to the lack of suitable habitat or because the study area is outside the known distribution or elevation range for the species. Since these species are not expected to be present in the study area, no impacts would occur as a result of project development and no mitigation measures are required. The remaining seven special‐status wildlife species were determined to have a potential to occur on the study area and/or within the original pipeline alignment, including Palos Verdes blue butterfly, silvery legless lizard, burrowing owl, southwestern willow flycatcher, least Bell’s vireo, costal California gnatcatcher, and western mastiff bat. Of these species, focused surveys were completed for Palos Verdes blue butterfly, burrowing owl, southwestern willow flycatcher, least Bell’s vireo, and coastal California gnatcatcher. Details regarding these species are discussed in further detail below.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐37

Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017

The remaining two (2) species with a potential to occur, silvery legless lizard and western mastiff bat, were determined as having a low potential based on the quality of habitat on the study area and in the surrounding area and known occurrence data. Both species are listed as species of special concern by the CDFW and do not carry a federal or state listing as threatened or endangered. Silvery legless lizard was determined to have a low potential to occur on the study area based on the presence of potentially suitable habitat within Brent Spring Canyon. However, the project has been designed to avoid impacts to Brent Springs Canyon and a 10‐foot buffer from the drainage. Silt fencing will be installed around the drainage and 10‐foot buffer to prevent any impacts from occurring to the drainage during slope improvement activities. Therefore, if silvery legless lizard is present within the area, no impacts would occur to potential suitable habitat for this species and it would be likely that any individuals potentially present within the area would disperse upon repair activities occurring. Western mastiff bat was determined to only have a potential to forage, and is not expected to roost within the study area due to the absence of the bat’s preferred roosting habitat (cliffs and rock crevices); however, this potential is considered low based on the high level of human disturbance on the study area and surrounding development. Furthermore, most of the impacts associated with the project are temporary and other areas of foraging habitat within the vicinity will continue to provide foraging opportunities for this species, if present. As such, regional populations of both species are not expected to be adversely impacted by the project. Therefore, no significant impacts to these species will occur and no mitigation is required.

Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly Palos Verdes blue butterfly is a federally endangered species and was determined to have potential to occur within the original pipeline alignment. A total of five (5) individual Palos Verdes blue butterfly individuals were observed in 2011 within the original pipeline alignment in Chandler Preserve, just east of the study area. In February 2017, the original pipeline alignment was realigned to avoid Chandler Preserve due to biological and cultural constraints. Since suitable habitat is outside of the study area and the study area does not support host plants (deerweed and Santa Barbra milkvetch) for this species, no impacts to this species or to suitable habitat for this species are expected and no mitigation is required.

Burrowing Owl Burrowing owl is a state species of special concern and was determined to have a moderate potential to nest and forage on within the proposed Palos Verdes Landfill staging area due to the presence of suitable habitat, including disturbed, low‐growing vegetation, bare ground, and a few small fossorial mammal burrows. Focused surveys were conducted and no burrowing owls were observed within this area. However, due to the mobile nature of this species, CDFW protocol requires pre‐construction surveys to detect changes in owl presences (e.g., colonizing owls that have recently moved to the site, migrating owls). Implementation of the project could result in significant direct impacts to burrowing owl if present on the study area prior to construction. A condition of approval (COA BIO‐1) is recommended, which requires completion of pre‐ construction surveys in accordance with CDFW protocol. If burrowing owl is detected during the pre‐ construction survey, impacts would be considered significant and as such, a mitigation measure (MM BIO‐1) is recommended to reduce potential impacts to burrowing owls. Mitigation is proposed consistent with the burrowing owl mitigation guidelines published by CDFW. Compliance with COA BIO‐1 and implementation of MM BIO‐1 would reduce any direct impacts to burrowing owl to less than significant.

Conditions of Approval

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐38

November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations

COA BIO‐1: Due to the presence of suitable habitat, a pre‐construction take avoidance survey for burrowing owls should be conducted within the project site no less than 14 days prior to initiating ground disturbance activities in accordance with the guidelines in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012) to determine the presence of burrowing owls and avoid potential direct take of burrowing owls if present.

Mitigation Measures

MM BIO‐1: If burrowing owls are determined present during the pre‐construction survey, occupied burrows and habitat shall be avoided if feasible following the guidelines in the above referenced CDFW Staff Report. This includes, but is not limited to, avoiding direct or indirect destruction of burrows, implementing a worker awareness program, biological monitoring, establishing avoidance buffers, and flagging burrows for avoidance with visible markers. The Palos Verdes Landfill provides more than 80 acres of potentially suitable habitat and the burrowing owl surveys conducted included surveying the adjacent areas surrounding the staging areas. Thus, if burrowing owls are found within the 6.32‐acre staging area during the pre‐construction survey, the staging area to be used for the project will be adjusted to avoid any burrowing owl and their active burrows, as well as a 500‐foot buffer. Avoidance measures shall be implemented under the direction of the qualified biologist.

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and Least Bell’s Vireo Southwestern willow flycatcher and least Bell’s vireo are both federally endangered and state endangered species that have a low potential to occur within the study area due to a small isolated area of red willow thicket (0.05 acre) habitat within the downstream portion of Drainage B. The riparian habitat associated with Drainage B does not continue upstream. The upstream portion is dominated by disturbed/ornamental vegetation. Due to the small acreage of habitat within the study area, lack of upstream connectivity to suitable habitat, and presence of surrounding development, the red willow thicket habitat on the study area is considered to be of marginal quality. However, this community is associated with Drainage B and continues downstream and outside of the study area into more extensive higher quality riparian habitat, although the downstream portion is also highly disturbed by construction activities associated with the renovation of the Rolling Hills Country Club. Although the habitat was considered marginal, focused surveys for southwestern willow flycatcher and least Bell’s vireo were conducted in 2011 and 2016 within the original pipeline alignment, which included the small portion of red willow thicket within the study area. Neither species were detected during focused surveys conducted within the survey area (suitable habitat within the study area and original pipeline alignment), and therefore the study area and adjacent areas do not support southwestern willow flycatcher or least Bell’s vireo. Additionally, these species have not been recorded within the vicinity of the study area in over 100 years. As such, no impacts will occur to southwestern willow flycatcher or least Bell’s vireo, and no mitigation is required.

Coastal California Gnatcatcher Coastal California gnatcatcher is a federally threatened and state species of special concern and has a potential to occur within the study area due to the presence of suitable habitat on the study area totaling 1.19 acres, including California sagebrush scrub (0.13 acre) and purple sage scrub (1.06 acres) along the slopes adjacent to Crenshaw Boulevard. Coastal California gnatcatcher was recorded in CNDDB in 1980 and 2006 in two locations adjacent to study area or within the immediate vicinity of the portion of the study area

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐39

Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017 along Crenshaw Boulevard. In addition, during a survey on January 11, 2016 to update the vegetation map for the original pipeline alignment, a coastal California gnatcatcher was heard off‐site in the distance to the north within the Chandler Preserve (north of the Rolling Hills Little League Lower Fields, but outside of the study area).

However, no coastal California gnatcatchers were detected on the study area or within the original pipeline alignment during focused surveys conducted in 2011 and 2016 in accordance with USFWS protocols. Additionally, the suitable habitat observed within the study area is limited in acreage, somewhat fragmented, and does not connect to larger areas of higher quality habitat. Since coastal California gnatcatchers were not observed within the study area during focused survey, no direct impacts are anticipated to coastal California gnatcatcher. Therefore, impacts are less than significant and no mitigation is warranted.

However, due to the off‐site detection of a coastal California gnatcatcher within the vicinity of the study area, there is potential for indirect impacts (e.g., due to noise) to occur during construction if this species is present within the vicinity. Indirect impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher would be considered potentially significant. Mitigation measure MM BIO‐2 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Portions of the study area are within designated critical habitat mapped by USFWS and includes 35.04 acres of coastal California gnatcatcher critical habitat. A total of 20.03 acres of unoccupied designated coastal California gnatcatcher critical habitat within the study area will be avoided. The Project will permanently impact 0.60 acre and temporarily impact 14.41 acres of unoccupied designated critical habitat within the study area, as shown in Figure B‐5, Impacts to USFWS Critical Habitat. Of the 0.60 acre of permanent impacts to critical habitat, 0.07 acre consists of native lemonade berry scrub, and the remainder consists of ornamental vegetation (0.32 acre) or disturbed areas (0.21 acre). It should also be noted that the majority of the temporary impacts to critical habitat within the study area consist of the developed portions of Crenshaw Boulevard, which is a highly‐travelled road that does not support any habitat to support coastal California gnatcatcher within the paved areas or the disturbed right‐of‐way.

The 14.41 acres of temporary impacts to critical habitat includes impacts to developed areas (13.40 acres), developed/ornamental areas (0.01 acre), disturbed areas (0.94 acre), non‐native herbaceous cover (less than 0.01 acre), and ornamental vegetation (0.05 acre). Temporary impacts to critical habitat will be returned to pre‐project conditions.

Permanent impacts will occur to 0.07 acre of native lemonade berry scrub, and although currently unoccupied and not the preferred habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher for nesting (e.g., as coastal sage scrub habitat is), this community is considered a chaparral community which may possibly be used for foraging and may be important in the future for dispersal and foraging for the coastal California gnatcatcher and the long‐term conservation of this species. As such, impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher designated critical habitat would be considered potentially significant. Mitigation measure MM BIO‐3 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Permanent impacts will also occur to ornamental vegetation and disturbed areas within designated critical habitat; however, these vegetation classes and land uses do not provide the primary constituent elements to support coastal California gnatcatcher.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐40

Study Area !( CNDDB Coastal California Gnatcatcher Records USFWS Critical Habitats PVB - Palos Verdes blue butterfly (Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdensis) - 7/2/1980 CAGN - Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) - 12/19/2007 Pump Station (acreage within CAGN CH) Study Building (0.051 ac.) Area Paving (0.549 ac.)

!(

!( !( !( !(

!( !(

!(

0 300 0 2 N Feet N Miles Path:U:\GIS-PCR\GIS_ACTIVE\Cal_Water_Palos_Verdes\Projects\2017 - BRA Report\Fig-Impacts11 toUSFWS Critical Habitat -17x11 - 09-25-17.mxd, sgeissler 7/12/2017

SOURCE: Open Street Map, 2017; NAIP, 2016 (Aerial). Palos Verdes Peninsula Water Reliability Project Figure B-5 Impacts to USFWS Critical Habitat Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017

Conditions of Approval

COA BIO‐2: Prior to the issuance of any grading permit for the project, the project applicant shall consult with USFWS as provided for by Section 7 of the FESA (i.e., for permanent impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher designated critical habitat), presumably associated with the processing of 404 Permit with USACE. This statute imposes the obligation on federal agencies to ensure that their actions (such as issuing federal CWA permits for this project) are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or destroy or adversely modify its designated critical habitat. This obligation is enforced through the procedural requirement that agencies, such as the USACE, initiate consultation with USFWS on any actions that may affect a threatened or endangered species. Due to the minimal impacts proposed to critical habitat, it is anticipated that at least informal consultation with the USFWS regarding the coastal California gnatcatcher will be necessary. The USFWS will gather all relevant information concerning the Project and the potential project‐related impacts on the coastal California gnatcatcher and critical habitat (i.e., the project applicant will submit a species‐specific Biological Assessment), prepare its opinion with respect to whether the project is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species, and recommend mitigation/conservation measures where appropriate.

Mitigation Measures

MM BIO‐2: The following mitigation is proposed for potential indirect impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher.

1. If construction must be conducted within the breeding season for coastal California gnatcatcher (nesting season is typically February 15 through August 31) within 500 feet of coastal sage scrub habitat, then the following must occur:

a. A pre‐construction nesting survey consisting of a minimum of three surveys spaced at least one week apart shall be conducted within suitable habitat within 500 feet of the construction work limits to determine if any coastal California gnatcatcher are nesting nearby. If coastal California gnatcatcher are present, the following would be required:

i. A qualified biologist shall identify a 500‐foot avoidance buffer from any occupied nest if construction occurs during the breeding season. The 500‐foot avoidance buffer shall be delineated with flags and/or fencing prior to the initiation of construction activities. If work is required within 500‐feet during the breeding season, USFWS will be notified prior to initiating activities within the 500‐foot buffer and the biologist shall monitor all work to ensure no disturbance to the coastal California gnatcatcher occurs and recommend measures to minimize indirect disturbance as needed (e.g., hay bales for visual barrier and/or noise attenuation). Written documentation shall be prepared and submitted to USFWS upon completion of construction during the breeding season to outline any monitoring activities.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐42

November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations

ii. Prior to construction, a worker awareness program should be developed and implemented to inform all workers on the project about listed species, sensitive habitats, and the importance of complying with avoidance and minimization measures.

MM BIO‐3: The following mitigation is proposed for potential indirect impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher. For permanent impacts to 0.07 acre of native lemonade berry scrub within unoccupied designated coastal California gnatcatcher critical habitat, on‐site and/or off‐site creation, restoration, enhancement, and/or preservation of lemonade berry scrub and/or coastal sage scrub habitat suitable for coastal California gnatcatcher (e.g., California sagebrush scrub) will occur at a ratio no less than 1:1. If mitigation is implemented on‐site, mitigation will be detailed in a conceptual restoration plan that will include information on site preparation, seeding and planting (if applicable), maintenance and monitoring, and adaptive management. The plan will include establishment of ecologically‐based success criteria that are observable and measureable, and up to a 5‐year period after mitigation implementation or as otherwise determined through coordination with California Water Service Company and USFWS. Off‐site mitigation may occur on land acquired for the purpose of in‐perpetuity preservation with approved long‐term management plan, management entity, and endowment structure, or through the purchase of mitigation credits at an agency‐approved off‐site mitigation bank or in‐lieu fee program. Any temporary impacts to gnatcatcher habitat will be restored to pre‐ project conditions (i.e., pre‐project contours and revegetate, where applicable, with approved performance standards and monitoring requirements). b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Sensitive Plant Communities Less Than Significant Impact. The study area supports five sensitive plant communities totaling 8.10 acres, including 0.44 acre of California brittle bush scrub/non‐native herbaceous cover, 7.22 acres of lemonade berry scrub, 0.14 acre of lemonade berry scrub/California sagebrush scrub, 0.05 acre of red willow thicket, and 0.25 acre of toyon chaparral/ornamental, as outlined below in Table B‐9, Impacts to Plant Communities, and shown on Figure B‐6A and Figure B‐6B, Impacts to Plant Communities. A total of 0.07 acre of permanent impacts are proposed to lemonade berry scrub. Although this community is considered sensitive by CDFW, impacts are minimal and within an area where this community is fragmented along the steep slopes abutting Crenshaw Boulevard immediately adjacent to ornamental vegetation and disturbed areas along the maintained right‐of‐way. These fragmented patches of habitat are surrounded by residential and commercial development within the area. In addition, the majority of the lemonade berry scrub within the study area will be avoided (i.e., 7.14 acres of lemonade berry scrub and 0.14 acre of lemonade berry scrub/California sagebrush scrub would be avoided). As such, this community would still persist within the region and would continue to provide habitat to support species that may use this community. Thus, impacts to this sensitive community would be considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

In addition, temporary impacts will occur to 0.05 acre of red willow thicket. The red willow thicket within the study area consists of a small isolated area of habitat within the downstream portion of Drainage B. The riparian habitat associated with Drainage B does not continue upstream. The upstream portion is dominated

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐43

Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017 by disturbed/ornamental vegetation. Due to the small acreage of habitat within the study area, lack of upstream connectivity to suitable habitat, and presence of surrounding development, the red willow thicket habitat on the study area is considered to be of marginal quality. However, this community is associated with Drainage B and continues downstream and outside of the study area into more extensive higher quality riparian habitat, although the downstream portion is also highly disturbed by construction activities associated with the renovation of the Rolling Hills Country Club. Regardless, the impacts to the 0.05 acre of red willow thicket within the study area will only be temporarily impacted and will be restored to pre‐ project conditions (i.e., pre‐project contours and revegetate where applicable, as outlined in COA BIO‐3). As such, impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

The remainder of the study area supports a mixture of commonly occurring native and non‐native communities as well as developed areas and ornamental vegetation that are not considered sensitive pursuant to CDFW. A figure showing impacts to all native plant communities on‐site is provided in Figures B‐ 6A and B‐6B. Acreages of existing and impacted native plant communities are summarized in Table B‐9. A total of 99.9 percent of all native plant communities would be entirely avoided by the project and, as such, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required.

TABLE B-9 PROPOSED IMPACTS TO PLANT COMMUNITIES

Permanent Temporary Existing Impacts Impacts Total Impacts Plant Community (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres)

California Brittle Bush Scrub/Non‐native 0.44 ‐ ‐ ‐ Herbaceous Cover California Sagebrush Scrub 0.13 ‐ ‐ ‐ Coyote Brush Scrub 0.14 ‐ ‐ ‐ Lemonade Berry Scrub 7.22 0.07 <0.01 0.07 Lemonade Berry Scrub/California Sagebrush 0.14 ‐ ‐ ‐ Scrub Purple Sage Scrub 1.06 ‐ ‐ ‐ Red Willow Thicket 0.05 ‐ 0.05 0.05 Toyon Chaparral/Ornamental 0.25 ‐ ‐ ‐ Non‐native Grassland 0.02 ‐ ‐ ‐ Ornamental 12.39 0.32 0.85 1.17 Non‐native Herbaceous Cover 4.81 ‐ 1.57 1.57 Non‐native Herbaceous Cover/Lemonade Berry 0.14 ‐ ‐ ‐ Scrub Non‐native Herbaceous Cover/Ornamental 11.86 ‐ 7.82 7.82 Disturbed 6.19 0.21 1.48 1.69 Disturbed/Ornamental 10.93 ‐ 5.06 5.06 Developed 26.29 ‐ 22.87 22.87 Developed/Ornamental 28.79 ‐ 15.09 15.09 Total 110.85 0.60 54.79 55.39

SOURCE: ESA, 2017.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐44

Study Area CBS - Coyote Brush LBS - Lemonade Berry NHC/ORN - Non-native Scrub Scrub * Herbaceous Cover / ORN Permanent Impact ORN Ornamental CSB - California LBS/CSB - Lemonade Temporary Impact Sagebrush Scrub Berry Scrub / California NNG - Non-native * Sensitive Plant Sagebrush Scrub * Grassland ORN DEV - Developed ORN Community NHC - Non-native ORN - Ornamental DEV/ORN - Developed / Herbaceous Cover Plant Communities Ornamental PSS - Purple Sage Scrub NHC/LBS - Non-native CBR/NHC - California DIS - Disturbed RWT - Red Willow TCH/ORN NHC Herbaceous Cover / Brittle Scrub/Non-native Thicket * Herbaceous Cover * DIS/ORN - Disturbed / Lemonade Berry Scrub ORN Ornamental TCH/ORN - Toyon CSB NHC Chaparral / Ornamental * DIS

NHC/LBSLBS PSS ORN LBS DIS ORN DIS ORN NHC PSS ORN NHC ORN LBS ORN ORN LBS ORN LBS LBS ORN DIS LBS/CSB LBS NHC/LBS NHC LBS PSS NHC ORN NNGDIS LBS ORNNNGCBS CBS DEV DIS NHC PSS PSS ORNORN LBS NHC 0 900 NHC ORN N Feet

Crenshaw Boulevard

Palos Verdes Drive

LBS NHC/LBS PSS ORN LBS DIS Crest Road LBS DEV/ORN ORN DIS DIS LBS ORN DEV/ORN LBS DIS DEV/ORN ORN CBR/NHC

LBS DEV/ORN Crenshaw Boulevard ORN LBS CBR/NHCLBS DEV DEV/ORN DIS ORN DIS/ORN DEV NHC/ORN DEV/ORN

ORN N 0 900 DEV/ORN DEV Feet Path:U:\GIS-PCR\GIS_ACTIVE\Cal_Water_Palos_Verdes\Projects\2017 - BRA Report\Fig 12A - Impactsto PlantCommunities -17x11 - 09-25-17.mxd, sgeissler 6/20/2017

SOURCE: NAIP, 2016 (Aerial). Palos Verdes Peninsula Water Reliability Project

Figure B-6A Impacts to Plant Communities NHC Study Area LBS/CSB - Lemonade RWT Berry Scrub / California NHC Temporary Impact Sagebrush Scrub * ORN DIS/ORN DIS DEV * Sensitive Plant DIS/ORN DIS DEV NHC - Non-native DIS Community DEV DIS/ORN DIS/ORNORN ORN DEV Herbaceous Cover ORN DIS/ORN ORN Plant Communities DEV/ORN NHC/LBS - Non-native DEV/ORN CBR/NHC - California Herbaceous Cover / DIS/ORN DEV/ORN Brittle Scrub/Non-native Lemonade Berry Scrub NHC Herbaceous Cover * NHC/ORN - Non-native CBS - Coyote Brush Herbaceous Cover / Scrub Ornamental

NHC/ORN CSB - California NNG - Non-native Sagebrush Scrub Grassland NHC/ORN DEV - Developed ORN - Ornamental ORN DEV/ORN - Developed / PSS - Purple Sage Scrub ORN NHC Ornamental RWT - Red Willow Thicket * NHC DIS - Disturbed DEV/ORN DIS/ORN - Disturbed / DEV/ORN TCH/ORN - Toyon Ornamental Chaparral / Ornamental * LBS - Lemonade Berry 0 900 Scrub * NHC/ORN N Feet NHC/ORN ORN

Crenshaw Boulevard ORN

NHC/ORN

Palos Verdes Drive

DEV/ORN NHC/ORN

Crest Road

ORN

0 900 DEV/ORN N ORN Feet Path:U:\GIS-PCR\GIS_ACTIVE\Cal_Water_Palos_Verdes\Projects\2017 - BRA Report\Fig12B -Impacts toPlant Communities - -17x1109-25-17.mxd, sgeissler6/20/2017

SOURCE: NAIP, 2016 (Aerial). Palos Verdes Peninsula Water Reliability Project

Figure B-6B Impacts to Plant Communities November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations

CDFW Jurisdiction Less Than Significant Impact. The study area supports drainages that are considered jurisdictional streambed pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, as regulated by CDFW. Temporary impacts are proposed to 0.132 acre within Drainage B and 0.005 acre within Drainage B2, as shown on Figures B‐7A through B‐7D, Impacts to Jurisdictional. Brent Spring Canyon as well as a 10‐foot buffer from the drainage will be avoided. Existing and impact acreages are summarized in Table B‐10, Proposed Impacts and Avoidance of CDFW Jurisdictional Features.

Since any temporary impacts to CDFW jurisdictional features would be restored to pre‐project conditions (i.e., pre‐project contours and revegetate where applicable), impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. However, the applicant would be required to comply with Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, including applying for a permit (as outlined in COA BIO‐3).

TABLE B-10 PROPOSED IMPACTS AND AVOIDANCE OF CDFW JURISDICTIONAL FEATURESA

Existing Permanent Temporary Drainage Name (acres) Impacts (acres) Impacts (acres) Avoidance (acres)

Drainage Complex A Drainage A 0.008 ‐ ‐ 0.008 Drainage A1 0.033 ‐ ‐ 0.033 Drainage A1.1 0.004 ‐ ‐ 0.004 Subtotal 0.045 ‐ ‐ 0.045 Drainage Complex B Drainage B 0.137 ‐ 0.132 0.005 Drainage B2 0.010 ‐ 0.005 0.005 Subtotal 0.147 ‐ 0.137 0.0104 Crenshaw Ditch East 0.094 ‐ ‐ 0.094 Crenshaw Ditch West 0.433 ‐ ‐ 0.433 Brent Spring Canyon 0.098 ‐ ‐ 0.098 Total Pipeline Study Area 0.817 0 0.137 0.680

a Regulatory agency jurisdictional acreages typically overlap and are therefore not additive (e.g., CDFW acreages are routinely inclusive of USACE jurisdictional acreages).

SOURCE: ESA, 2017

Conditions of Approval

COA BIO‐3: Prior to the issuance of any grading permit for permanent impacts in the areas designated as jurisdictional features, the project applicant shall obtain regulatory permits from the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW. Any temporary impacts shall be restored to pre‐project conditions (i.e., pre‐project contours and revegetate where applicable).

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐47

Crenshaw Boulevard

Crenshaw Ditch West

Palos Verdes Drive

Crenshaw Boulevard

Crest Road

Crenshaw Ditch East

Crenshaw Crenshaw Ditch West Ditch East

Crenshaw Boulevard Study Area Permanent Impact Temporary Impact Culvert USACE Jurisdiction N 0 240 CDFW Jurisdiction Feet Path:U:\GIS-PCR\GIS_ACTIVE\Cal_Water_Palos_Verdes\Projects\2017 - BRA Report\Fig 13A - Impactsto JurisdictionalFeatures - -17x1109-25-17.mxd, sgeissler6/22/2017

SOURCE: NAIP, 2016 (Aerial). Palos Verdes Peninsula Water Reliability Project Figure B-7A Impacts to Jurisdictional Features Crenshaw Boulevard

Crenshaw Crenshaw Boulevard Ditch West Crenshaw Ditch West

Crenshaw Boulevard Palos Verdes Drive

Crest Road

Crenshaw Ditch East Crenshaw Ditch East Crenshaw Ditch East

Crenshaw Ditch West

Crenshaw Ditch East Crenshaw Boulevard

Study Area Temporary Impact Crenshaw USACE Jurisdiction N 0 240 Ditch East CDFW Jurisdiction Feet Path:U:\GIS-PCR\GIS_ACTIVE\Cal_Water_Palos_Verdes\Projects\2017 - BRA Report\Fig13B -Impacts toJurisdictional Features--17x11 09-25-17.mxd, sgeissler 6/22/2017

SOURCE: NAIP, 2016 (Aerial). Palos Verdes Peninsula Water Reliability Project Figure B-7B Impacts to Jurisdictional Features Crenshaw Boulevard

Palos Verdes Drive

A1

A A1.1

Crest Road

B B

B2

B B2

B

B

B Study Area Temporary Impact USACE Jurisdiction 0 240 N CDFW Jurisdiction Feet Path:U:\GIS-PCR\GIS_ACTIVE\Cal_Water_Palos_Verdes\Projects\2017 - BRA Report\Fig13C - Impactsto JurisdictionalFeatures - -17x1109-25-17.mxd, sgeissler 6/22/2017

SOURCE: NAIP, 2016 (Aerial). Palos Verdes Peninsula Water Reliability Project Figure B-7C Impacts to Jurisdictional Features

SOURCE: NAIP, 2016 (Aerial). 2016 NAIP, SOURCE: Path: U:\GIS-PCR\GIS_ACTIVE\Cal_Water_Palos_Verdes\Projects\2017 - BRA Report\Fig 13D - Impacts to Jurisdictional Features - 17x11 - 09-25-17.mxd, sgeissler 6/22/2017 N Crest Road 0 Feet 240 Crenshaw Boulevard Palos Verdes Drive Verdes Palos Brent Spring Canyon Spring Brent Brent Spring Canyon Spring Brent the drainage will be avoided. be will drainage the from buffer 10-foot a as well Brent Spring Canyon as as Canyon Spring Brent Brent Spring Canyon Spring Brent B B Palos Verdes Peninsula Water Reliability Water Project Peninsula Verdes Palos Impacts to Jurisdic Impacts B B2 CDFW CDFW Jurisdiction USACEJurisdiction TemporaryImpact Study Area tional Features B2 Figure B-7D B B Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017 c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Less Than Significant Impact With Regulatory Compliance. The study area does not support wetlands but does support USACE/RWQCB non‐wetland jurisdiction regulated under Sections 404/401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Temporary impacts are proposed to 0.049 acre (869 linear feet) within Drainage B and 0.002 acre (40 linear feet) within Drainage B2, as shown on Figures B‐7A through B‐7D. Brent Spring Canyon as well as a 10‐foot buffer from the drainage will be avoided. Existing and impact acreages are summarized in Table B‐11, Proposed Impacts and Avoidance of USACE/RWQCB Jurisdictional Features.

Since any temporary impacts to USACE and/or RWQCB jurisdictional features would be restored to pre‐ project conditions (i.e., pre‐project contours and revegetate where applicable), impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. However, the applicant would be required to comply with Sections 404 and 401 of the CWA, respectively, including applying for permits (as outlined in COA BIO‐3 above).

TABLE B-11 PROPOSED IMPACTS AND AVOIDANCE OF USACE/RWQCB JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES

Permanent Temporary Existing Impacts Impacts Avoidance

Length Area Length Area Length Area Length Area Drainage (ft) (Acres) (ft) (Acres) (ft) (Acres) (ft) (Acres)

Drainage Complex A Drainage A 85 0.004 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 85 0.004 Drainage A1 472 0.011 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 472 0.011 Drainage A1.1 61 0.001 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 61 0.001 Subtotal 618 0.016 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 618 0.016 Drainage Complex B Drainage B 869 0.049 ‐ ‐ 869 0.049 0 0 Drainage B2 80 0.004 ‐ ‐ 40 0.002 40 0.002 Subtotal 949 0.053 ‐‐909 0.051 40 0.002 Crenshaw Ditch East 1,356 0.031 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,356 0.031 Crenshaw Ditch West 2,535 0.179 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,535 0.179 Brent Spring Canyon 238 0.073 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 238 0.073 Total 5,696 0.352 0 0 909 0.051 4,787 0.301

SOURCE: ESA, 2017.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐52

November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Wildlife Movement Less Than Significant Impact. As described above in Existing Conditions, Wildlife Movement Within the Study Area, the study area supports potential live‐in and movement habitat for species on a local scale (i.e., some limited live‐in and at least marginal movement habitat for reptile, bird, and mammal species), but it likely provides little to no function to facilitate wildlife movement for wildlife species on a regional scale, and is not identified as a regionally important dispersal or seasonal migration corridor. Movement on a local scale likely occurs with species adapted to urban environments due to the development and disturbances in the vicinity of the study area. Although implementation of the project may temporarily result in disturbances to local wildlife movement within the study area, those species adapted to developed areas would be expected to persist on‐ site following construction. Additionally, the pipeline will be buried and will not impede local wildlife movement post‐construction. Since the study area does not function as a regional wildlife corridor and is not known to support wildlife nursery area(s), no impacts would occur and no mitigation measures would be required.

Migratory Birds and Raptors Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The study area has the potential to support songbird and raptor nests due to the presence of shrubs, ground cover, and trees on‐site. Nesting activity typically occurs from February 15 to August 31. Disturbing or destroying active nests is a violation of the MBTA (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.). In addition, nests and eggs are protected under Fish and Wildlife Code Section 3503. As such, direct impacts to breeding birds (e.g. through nest removal) or indirect impacts (e.g. by noise causing abandonment of the nest) is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation measure MM BIO‐4 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures

MM BIO‐4: Prior to the issuance of any grading permit that would remove potentially suitable nesting habitat for raptors or songbirds, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of Rolling Hills Estates that either of the following has been or will be accomplished.

1. Vegetation removal activities shall be scheduled outside the nesting season (September 1 to February 14 for songbirds; September 1 to January 14 for raptors) to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds. 2. Any construction activities that occur during the nesting season (February 15 to August 31 for songbirds; January 15 to August 31 for raptors) will require that all suitable habitat be thoroughly surveyed for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist before the commencement of clearing. If any active nests are detected a buffer of 300 feet (500 feet for raptors) around the nest adjacent to construction will be delineated, flagged, and avoided until the nesting cycle is complete. The buffer may

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐53

Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017

be modified and/or other recommendations proposed as determined appropriate by the biological monitor to ensure no adverse effects to nesting birds. e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The study area supports numerous trees, and based on the jurisdiction, trees may be protected through local city or county ordinances. A tree survey has not yet been conducted, but is anticipated to be completed in June 2017. The City of Rolling Hills protects street trees that are planted or maintained by the city, and removal, trimming, pruning, or cutting any street tree is not permitted without a written request from the property owner to the street superintendent of the City of Rolling Hills Estates (per City of Rolling Hills Estates Municipal Code, Chapter 12.20 ‐ Street Trees). The City of Rancho Palos Verdes protects trees on City property or a City right‐of‐way that reach heights of sixteen feet or more upon maturity, and a permit from the director of public works is required for any removal of protected trees (per Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, Chapter 12.08 ‐ Tree and Shrubs, and the City’s Tree Trimming, Planting and Removal Policy & Guidelines). The County of Los Angeles protects all species of the oak genus (Quercus) that measure 25 inches or more in circumference (eight inches in diameter) for trees with a single trunk and 38 inches of combined circumference (12 inches in diameter) for any two trunks of trees with multiple stems at DBH. The Oak Tree Ordinance also covers the “protected zone” of oak trees, which extends to five feet outside of the dripline of the oak tree, or 15 feet from the trunk(s) of a tree, whichever distance is greater. Any tree removal or encroachment into the protected zone is prohibited unless an oak tree permit is first obtained (per County of Los Angeles Oak Tree Ordinance).

Implementation of the project would result in potentially significant impacts to protected trees that may be removed or encroached upon. A condition of approval (COA BIO‐4) is included which requires that a tree survey be conducted within the project development footprint of the study area by a certified arborist. The tree survey is anticipated to be conducted in June 2017. In addition, three mitigation measures (MM BIO‐5, MM BIO‐6, and MM BIO‐7) are recommended to ensure that the project does not conflict with any local tree ordinances. Compliance with COA BIO‐4 and implementation of mitigation measures MM BIO‐5, MM BIO‐6, and MM BIO‐7 would reduce impacts to protected trees to a less than significant level.

Conditions of Approval

COA BIO‐4: Prior to the issuance of any grading permit for the project, a tree survey should be conducted by a certified arborist to inventory and assess protected trees within the project’s development footprint of the study area in accordance with the local tree protection ordinances for each city or county (i.e., City of Rolling Hills Estates Municipal Code, Chapter 12.20 ‐ Street Trees; Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, Chapter 12.08 ‐ Tree and Shrubs, and the City’s Tree Trimming, Planting and Removal Policy & Guidelines; County of Los Angeles Oak Tree Ordinance).

Mitigation Measures

MM BIO‐5: Prior to the removal or encroachment (e.g., trimming, pruning, cutting) of any street tree, per the City of Rolling Hills Estates Municipal Code, Chapter 12.20 ‐ Street Trees, if the property

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐54

November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations

owner desires to have a tree removed from a planting strip or planting easement, the property owner shall file a written request with the street superintendent of the City of Rolling Hills Estates (superintendent). If the tree is found to be in good condition and the request is granted solely for the convenience of the applicant, then the full cost of the tree removal and replanting as necessary, shall be borne by the applicant; the amount as determined by the superintendent shall be paid to the city treasurer before removal of the tree takes place. A replacement ratio of 1:1 is required for all street trees that are removed, and should be replaced with a species on the City’s Master Street Tree List.9

MM BIO‐6: Prior to the removal of any trees on City property or a City right‐of‐way, per the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, Chapter 12.08 ‐ Tree and Shrubs and the City’s Tree Trimming, Planting and Removal Policy & Guidelines, a permit must be obtained from Public Works. A replacement ratio of 1:1 is required for all City‐owned trees that are removed.10

MM BIO‐7: Prior to the removal or encroachment into a protected zone of any tree of the oak genus of regulation size, per the County of Los Angeles Oak Tree Ordinance, an oak tree permit must be obtained. Per Chapter 22.56.2180, the hearing officer or the director or commission may impose conditions, that may include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. The replacement of oak trees proposed for removal or relocation with trees of a suitable type, size, number, location and date of planting. Required replacement trees shall consist exclusively of indigenous oak trees and shall be mitigated at a minimum 2:1 ratio. Each replacement tree shall be at least a 15‐gallon size specimen and measure at least one inch in diameter one foot above the base. Replacement trees shall be maintained for a period of two years, and replaced by the permittee if mortality occurs within that period. Replacement trees shall be planted on the subject property, and if feasible, within the same general area where the trees were removed.

2. A plan for protecting oak trees on the subject property during and after development. The plan may include measures such as, but not limited to, installation of chain link fencing not less than four feet in height around the protected zone of trees shown on the site plan to remain in place throughout the entire period of development; having an arborist supervise all excavation or grading proposed within the protected zones of oak trees; and restricting any excavation or grading within the protected zone or within 15 feet of the trunk of a tree, whichever distance is greater, to be limited to hand tools or small hand‐power equipment.

9 City of Rolling Hills Estates Senior Planner Jeannie Naughton email communication with ESA Managing Associate Biologist Maile Tanaka on May 8, 2017. 10 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Associate Planner Amy Seeraty email communication with ESA Managing Associate Biologist Maile Tanaka on May 9, 2017.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐55

Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017 f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Less Than Significant Impact. A portion of the study area is within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which is signatory to the Rancho Palos Verdes Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) Subarea Plan. A small portion of the southernmost extent of the study area along Crenshaw Boulevard, from Indian Peak Road to Crest Road, is located within the Subarea Plan Boundary. As all project‐associated impacts within this area will be temporary impacts within the existing paved road along Crenshaw Boulevard and no impacts will occur to any native habitat or biological resources, the Project does not conflict with the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP, and no mitigation is required. The Project does not conflict with any other adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐56

November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES The following impact analysis pertaining to cultural resources is based on information contained in the Palos Verdes Peninsula Water Reliability Project, Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (herein referred to as the “Cultural Resources Assessment”), prepared by ESA, dated September 2017 (included as Appendix C of this Initial Study).

Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in significance of a historical resource as defined in State CEQA §15064.5? No Impact. The Project would involve the construction and operation of two new pipelines and a pump station to provide domestic water service to existing uses within the service area. No structures would be demolished as a result of the Project. No built environment resources were identified from the records search. However, a small plaque that commemorates the first family home (the Phillips family) on the Palos Verdes Peninsula was encountered within a portion of the area of potential effect (APE). It was placed at a location near Lariat Lane by the Rancho de los Palos Verdes Historical Society in 1985. A description of this plaque is as follows:

“The Farmery” – this plaque is titled as “The Farmery” and is set in white Palos Verdes stone and was dedicated on November 16, 1985 by the Rancho de los Palos Verdes Historical Society. The plaque commemorates the first family home on the Palos Verdes Peninsula by the pioneering Phillips family. The plaque reads: “In 1894, Harry Phillips built and occupied the first permanent residence, a small cottage near the present day City Hall. It was replaced by a larger farmstead located east of Rolling Hills Road where the family lived until the 1920s. As foreman of the 16,000‐ acre Bixby Cattle Ranch, Harry Phillips found rare water sources, marketed livestock, introduced farm crops, and planted the present groves of eucalyptus and pepper trees.”

Since the plaque does not meet the 45‐ or 50‐year age threshold, it is not considered a historical resource or a historic property in accordance with CEQA or Section 106, respectively, and therefore no further work or mitigation measures are warranted for the plaque. However, it is recommended that the plaque be avoided by Project construction activities. Moreover, since the location of the Phillips family homestead was located 400 feet from the APE and has since been displaced by a residential subdivision, no above‐ground remnants of the Phillips homestead would be impacted by the Project.

As such, based on the results of the Cultural Resources Assessment, the Project would not cause any adverse change to above‐ground historical resources (buildings or structures that are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources). As such, no impacts would occur in this regard. b. Cause a substantial adverse change in significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to State CEQA §15064.5? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. According to the Cultural Resources Assessment, no archaeological resources were identified during the survey of the area of potential effects (APE); refer to Figures 3A through 3C of the Cultural Resources Assessment for specific locations of the APE.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐57

Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017

The negative survey results are a direct result of the poor surface visibility within the majority of the APE that may have obstructed the identification of resources on the surface. Within the Cultural Resources Assessment, 90 percent of the APE was surveyed and ground surface visibility throughout the APE ranged from zero to 100 percent.

The cultural records search conducted through the California Historical Resources Information System‐ South Central Coast Information Center (CHRIS‐SCCIC) indicated that 11 prehistoric archaeological resources have been recorded within a half‐mile of the APE; refer to Table 2, Previously Recorded Cultural Resources Within ½ Mile of the APE, of the Cultural Resources Assessment (Appendix C of this Initial Study). The prehistoric archaeological resources have been described as consisting of shell midden, camps/village sites, scattered lithic waste, artifacts consisting of projectile points, pestles, steatite doughnuts, etc., and human remains. However, none of these resources are located within the APE and will therefore not be impacted by the Project. A large Native American village, known as Chowgna, is located at Malaga Cove, approximately 2.75 miles northwest of the APE.

Approximately 90 percent of the surface geology within the APE is mapped as either Altamira Shale, Malaga Mudstone, or Valmonte Diatomite. These geologic units date from the late to middle Miocene (or 5.3 MYA to 16 MYA) and therefore do not have potential to retain archaeological resources given their old age. Any archaeological resources that may have existed, or currently exist in these areas would have been located at or near the surface. Moreover, any archaeological resources that may have existed at the surface have likely been displaced by disturbances within the APE (e.g., paved streets, surface parking lots, Dapplegray Elementary School, etc.). Based on these findings, the APE has no potential to yield buried archaeological resources during construction activities in sediments associated with Altamira Shale, Malaga Mudstone, or Valmonte Diatomite. The remaining geologic units within the APE (i.e., alluvium, older alluvium) cover approximately 10 percent of the APE and have at least a moderate potential to retain archaeological resources at depth. As such, Mitigation Measures CULT‐1 to CULT‐4 are prescribed to ensure that potentially significant impacts to previously unknown archaeological resources that might be unexpectedly discovered during Project implementation are reduced to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures

CULT‐1: Prior to issuance of demolition, grading, or building permit, the Applicant shall retain a qualified Archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (Qualified Archaeologist) to oversee an archaeological monitor who shall be present during construction excavations such as demolition, clearing/grubbing, grading, trenching, or any other construction excavation activity that would encounter sediments associated with alluvium. The frequency of monitoring shall be based on the rate of excavation and grading activities, the materials/sediments being excavated (younger sediments versus older sediments), and the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance and type of archaeological resources encountered. Archaeological construction monitoring shall not be carried out in sediments associated with Altamira Shale, Malaga Mudstone, or Valmonte Diatomite given their old age. Full‐time monitoring may be reduced to part‐time inspections, or ceased entirely, if determined adequate by the Qualified Archaeologist. Prior to commencement of excavation activities, an Archaeological Sensitivity Training shall be given for construction personnel. The training session, shall be carried out by the Qualified Archaeologist and the Gabrielino Tribe, will focus on how to identify archaeological resources that may be encountered during earthmoving activities, and the procedures to be followed in such an event.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐58

November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations

CULT‐2: Prior to issuance of demolition, grading, or building permit, the Applicant shall retain a Native American tribal monitor from a Gabrielino Tribe who shall be present during construction excavations such as clearing/grubbing, grading, trenching, or any other construction excavation activity that would encounter sediments associated with alluvium. The frequency of monitoring shall take into account the rate of excavation and grading activities, proximity to known archaeological resources, the materials/sediments being excavated (younger sediments versus older sediments), and the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance and type of prehistoric archaeological resources encountered. Native American construction monitoring shall not be carried out in sediments associated with Altamira Shale, Malaga Mudstone, or Valmonte Diatomite given their old age. Full‐time field observation can be reduced to part‐ time inspections or ceased entirely if determined appropriate by the Gabrielino Tribe.

CULT‐3: In the event that historic (e.g., bottles, foundations, refuse dumps/privies, etc.) or prehistoric (e.g., hearths, burials, stone tools, shall and faunal bone remains, etc.) archaeological resources are unearthed, ground‐disturbing activities shall be halted or diverted away from the vicinity of the find so that find can be evaluated. An appropriate buffer area shall be established by the Qualified Archaeologist around the find where construction activities shall not be allowed to continue. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area. All archaeological resources unearthed by Project construction activities shall be evaluated by the Qualified Archaeologist and the Gabrielino Tribe. If the resources are prehistoric or Native American in origin, the Gabrielino Tribe shall consult with the City and Qualified Archaeologist regarding the treatment and curation of those resources. If a resource is determined by the Qualified Archaeologist to constitute a “historical resource” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) or a “unique archaeological resource” pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(g), the Qualified Archaeologist shall coordinate with the Applicant and the City to develop a formal treatment plan that would serve to reduce impacts to the resources. The treatment plan shall incorporate the Gabrielino Tribe’s treatment and curation recommendations. Preservation in plaice (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavation to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. The treatment plan shall include measures regarding the curation of the recovered resources that may include curation at a public, non‐profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Fowler Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the material, and/or the Gabrielino Tribe. If no institution accepts the archaeological material and the Gabrielino Tribe does not accept the material, it may be donated to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes.

CULT‐4: Prior to the release of the grading bond, the qualified Archaeologist shall prepare a final report and appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation Site Forms at the conclusion of archaeological monitoring. The report shall include a description of resources unearthed, if any, treatment of the resources, results of the artifact processing, analysis, and research, and evaluation of the resources with respect to the California Register of Historical Resources and CEQA. The report and Site Forms shall be submitted by the Applicant to the City, the SCCIC, and representatives of other appropriate or concerned agencies to signify the satisfactory completion of the development and required mitigation measures.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐59

Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017 c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. According to the Cultural Resources Assessment, no paleontological resources were identified during the pedestrian/windshield survey of the APE. However, the negative survey results are a direct result of the poor ground surface visibility within the majority of the APE that may have obstructed the identification of resources on the surface. The paleontological resources records search revealed that the approximately 90 percent of the APE has exposures of the following fossiliferous geological formation/units: the late Pleistocene‐aged Palos Verdes Sand, the Miocene‐aged Valmonte Diatomite Member of the Monterey Formation, the late Miocene‐aged Altamira Shale Member of the Monterey Formation, and the Mio‐Pliocene‐aged Malaga Mudstone. All of these geological formations are known to have yielded paleontological resources in the vicinity of the APE and/or have the potential to yield paleontological resources.

Based on the fossiliferous geologic formations that have been mapped within the APE and the abundance of fossil localities in the vicinity of the APE, the potential to encounter fossiliferous deposits within the APE is considered high. As such, Mitigation Measures CULT‐5 to CULT‐7 are prescribed to ensure that potentially significant impacts to previously unknown paleontological resources that might be unexpectedly discovered during Project implementation are reduced to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures

CULT‐5: Prior to the issuance of a demolition, grading, or building permit, the Applicant shall retain a qualified Paleontologist to develop and implement a paleontological monitoring program for construction excavations that would encounter the following geological formations/units: Palos Verdes Sand, Valmonte Diatomite Member of the Monterey Formation, the Altamira Shale Member of the Monterey Formation, and Malaga Mudstone. The qualified Paleontologist shall attend a pre‐grading/excavation meeting to discuss the paleontological monitoring program. A qualified Paleontologist is defined as a paleontologist meeting the criteria established by the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology. The qualified Paleontologist shall supervise a paleontological monitor who shall be present at such times as required by the Paleontologist during construction excavations into sediments associated with the aforementioned geological formations/units. Monitoring shall consist of visually inspecting fresh exposures of rock for larger fossil remains and, where appropriate, collecting wet or dry screened sediment samples of promising horizons for smalls fossil remains. The frequency of monitoring inspections shall be determined by the qualified Paleontologist and shall be based on the rate of excavation and grading activities, the materials being excavated, and the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance and type of fossils encountered. Full‐time monitoring can be reduced to part‐time inspections, or ceased entirely, if determined adequate by the qualified Paleontologist.

CULT‐6: If a potential fossil is found, the paleontological monitor shall be allowed to temporarily divert or redirect grading and excavation activities in the area of the exposed fossil to facilitate evaluation of the discovery. An appropriate buffer area shall be established by the qualified Paleontologist around the find were construction activities shall not be allowed to continue. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area. At the qualified Paleontologist’s discretion, and to reduce any construction delay, the grading and excavation contractor shall assist in removing rock/sediment samples for initial processing and evaluation. If preservation in place is not feasible, the qualified Paleontologist shall implement a paleontological salvage

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐60

November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations

program to remove the resources from their location. Any fossils encountered and recovered shall be prepared to the point of identification and catalogues before they are submitted to their final repository. Any fossils collected shall be curated at a public, non‐profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, if such an institution agrees to accept the fossils. If no institution accepts the fossil collection, they shall be donated to a local school in the area for educational purposes. Accompanying notes, maps, and photographs shall also be filled at the repository and/or school.

CULT‐7: Prior to the release of the grading bond, the qualified Archaeologist shall prepare a report summarizing the results of the monitoring and salvaging efforts, the methodology used in these efforts, as well as a description of the fossils collected and their significance. The report shall be submitted by the Applicant to the City, the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, and representatives of other appropriate or concerned agencies to signify the satisfactory completion of the Project and required mitigation measures. d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. According to the Cultural Resources Assessment, the Sacred Land File (SLF) search through the NAHC and the pedestrian survey yielded negative results for human remains. However, Native American humans remains have been recorded within a half‐ mile of the APCE based on the SCCIC records search. Further, as discussed above under Response V.b., the SCCIC indicated that 11 prehistoric archaeological resources have been recorded within a half‐mile of the APE; refer to Table 2, Previously Recorded Cultural Resources Within ½ Mile of the APE, of the Cultural Resources Assessment (Appendix C of this Initial Study). As a result, the overall sensitivity of the APE with respect to human remains is moderate to high in alluvial sediments. As such, Mitigation Measure CULT‐8 has been prescribed to ensure that potentially significant impacts to previously unknown human remains that might be unexpectedly discovered during Project implementation are reduced to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures

CULT‐8: If human remains are encountered unexpectedly during implementation of the Project, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the NAHC. The NAHC shall then identify the person(s) thought to be the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). The MLD may, with the permission of the land owner, or his or her authorized representative, inspect the site of the discovery of the Native American remains and may recommend to the owner or the person responsible for the excavation work means for treating or disposing, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods. The MLD shall complete their inspection and make their recommendation within 48 hours of being granted access by the land owner to inspect the discovery. The recommendation may include the scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. Upon the discovery of the Native American remains, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standard or practices, where the Native American human remains are located, is not damaged or disturbed by further

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐61

Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017

development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred, as prescribed in this mitigation measure, with the MLD regarding their recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains. The landowner shall discuss and confer with the descendants all reasonable options regarding the descendants’ preferences for treatment.

Whenever the NAHC is unable to identify a MLD, or the MLD identified fails to make a recommendation, or the landowner or his or her authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendants and the mediation provided for in Subdivision (k) of Section 5097.94, if invoked, fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall inter the human remains and items associated with Native American human remains with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further and future subsurface disturbance.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐62

November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS The following discussion is based, in part, on information provided in the Preliminary Geotechnical Study Report Fore Bay and Pump Station (Site No. 4) Crenshaw Reservoir Project Rolling Hills Estates, California (herein referred to as the “Preliminary Geotechnical Report”), prepared by Fugro Consultants, Inc. in February 2015. This document is included as Appendix D of this Initial Study.

Would the project: a. Exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist‐ Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. No Impact. According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Report, the pump station site is not located within an Alquist‐Priolo fault rupture hazard zone as defined by the State of California Geologic Survey (CGS), though two mapped normal faults associated with the Silver Spur Graben are mapped in the swales about 500 feet south of the pump station site (Plate 4 of the Preliminary Geotechnical Report). The Silver Spur Graven faults are considered secondary faults that developed based on movement (stress release) associated with uplift along the primary active Palos Verdes Fault zone (PVFZ). The location and timing of fault movement associated with the Silver Spur Graben is not documented. The PVFZ has a reoccurrence interval of approximately 1,000 years. It is unlikely that the normal faults associated with Silver Spur Graben move as frequently as offsets along the PVFZ. Based on similar geologic models, the faults associated with the Silver Spur Graven would likely have a reoccurrence interval of thousands to tens of thousands of years. Total movement along the faults would likely only be a portion of the movement along the PVFZ. Based on the above information, the potential for ground rupture to occur at the pump station site appears to be low. As such, impacts associated with surface fault rupture for this facility would be less than significant in this regard.

The Project would also involve the construction and operation of two new pipelines to provide domestic water service to existing uses within the service area, the alignments of which could cross one or more known or unknown active earthquake faults. However, despite the potential presence of local earthquake faults underlying the proposed pipeline segments, the Project does not involve the placement of habitable structures or other improvements that could pose a risk to people or property resulting from surface rupture of a fault in the area. Furthermore, the proposed pipelines themselves would operate under pressure and could be damaged or fail in the event of a fault rupture along the alignment. However, the pipelines would include isolation valves that could be closed if a pipe failure were to occur, which would preclude the potential for substantial adverse effects to people or structures in the area associated with pipe failure during a seismic event.

As such, based on the discussion above, construction and operation of the Project would not increase risks to people or structures from earthquake activity or fault rupture, since the Project would not involve new

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐63

Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017 populated buildings or populations. Therefore, the Project would not expose people or structures to potential significant adverse effects from the rupture of a known earthquake fault, and no mitigation is required.

ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? No Impact. Seismic activity at area faults may result in ground shaking along the Project alignment. Seismic hazards from ground shaking are typical for many areas of Southern California. The Project would involve the construction and operation of two new pipelines and a pump station which would be constructed to meet all applicable Uniform Building Code and seismic safety standards, including the earthquake‐resistant standards required by the City of Rolling Hills Estates, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and unincorporated County of Los Angeles. The fact that the proposed pipeline would be constructed and operated underground minimizes the potential for above‐ground impacts, and below‐ground impacts would be limited to the area surrounding the point of pipe failure to a shallow depth, if failure were to occur. In addition, as noted above, the proposed pipelines would be equipped with isolation valves that could be shut if a pipeline were damaged by a seismic event. Damage to the pump station in the event of strong seismic ground shaking is not anticipated to pose a risk to people or structures, since no people work within the area where the pump station would operate and no structures are located in proximity to the pump station site. Furthermore, the pump station foundation and related structures would be designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Geotechnical Report, subject to review and approval by engineering staff of the City of Rolling Hills Estates, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and the County of Los Angeles, which would minimize the potential for substantial adverse effects related to seismic safety. Therefore, the Project is not expected to increase the risk of exposure of people or structures to strong seismic ground shaking and no mitigation is required.

iii. Seismic‐related ground failure, including liquefaction? No Impact. Depending on the levels of ground shaking, groundwater conditions, the relative density of soils, and the age of the geologic units in the area, the potential for liquefaction varies throughout the City of Rolling Hills Estates, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and unincorporated County of Los Angeles. Seismic‐ related ground failure, including liquefaction, occurs when saturated, granular deposits of low relative density are subject to extreme shaking and, as a result, lose strength or stiffness due to increased pore water pressure. The consequences of liquefaction are typically characterized by settlement or uplift of structures, and an increase in lateral pressure on buried structures. No portion of the proposed alignment is located within a liquefaction hazard area.11 Further, the Project components would be constructed to meet all applicable Uniform Building Code and seismic safety standards. Additionally, all trenches would be backfilled with engineered fill, which meets proper compaction and shear strength requirements, and therefore has little liquefiable potential. The proposed pipeline would operate as an underground structure and portions of the pump station would operate below‐grade; however, due to the application of engineered fill during construction, damage to the pipeline structure and/or underground portions of the pump station from an increase in lateral pressure is not expected. Additionally, as discussed above, the proposed pipeline and pump station would be constructed and operated in compliance with standards required by the City of Rolling Hills Estates, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and unincorporated County of Los Angeles. As such, seismic ground failure impacts that could expose people or structures (including the Project) to risk of

11 California Geological Survey. State of California Seismic Hazard Zones, Torrance Quadrangle. Released March 25, 1999. http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/download/pdf/ozn_tor.pdf. Accessed June 28, 2017.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐64

November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations substantial adverse effects (e.g., from liquefaction) would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

iv. Landslides? Less Than Significant Impact. Portions of the proposed alignment would be constructed and operated in areas susceptible to earthquake‐induced landslides.12 However, Project‐related landslides or mudflows are not anticipated to occur in the general area of the Project due to the fact that the pipelines would be constructed below native grade and the pump station facility would be constructed using retaining walls to ensure slope stability of the adjacent bluff to the northwest, and would also include a reinforced concrete foundation structure constructed relatively deep into the underlying bedrock layers, thereby providing additional stability at the toe of the slope. Specifically, according to the Preliminary Geotechnical Report, the slope adjacent to the pump station site is comprised of Monterey Formation shale bedrock and the structure of the bedrock unit is generally considered favorable with respect to slope stability at this site. No evidence of slope instability was observed or noted during the course of the geologic investigation. It is anticipated that excavations up to approximately 15 to 20 feet deep will be required to construct the fore bay and utility vaults. These excavations would occur between Crenshaw Boulevard and the toe of the slope, which would generally be within artificial fill and colluvium, with some bedrock excavation (perhaps about 10 feet) occurring at the west end of the fore bay. Considering the overall height of the slope, the scale of the proposed excavations, and that limited bedrock excavation is anticipated, on a qualitative basis, the excavation is unlikely to have a significant impact on the gross stability of the existing slope. It is further expected that construction of the fore bay and vaults will involve installation of a soldier beam wall constructed using top‐down methods, which is anticipated to provide a resistance at the toe of the slope equal to or larger than is currently provided by the in place colluvium. However, detailed quantitative evaluation of the geologic conditions, shear strength of the bedrock materials, and slope stability analyses will be required prior to final design of the Project, subject to review and approval by the City of Rolling Hills Estates.

With regard to rock fall hazards and localized landslides in proximity to the pump station site, an existing slope and drainage easement is located on portions of the property that allows the County of Los Angeles to perform cut/fill, grading, and rock/debris removal as part of ongoing maintenance of Crenshaw Boulevard (see further detailed discussion below under Response X.b). This easement is a non‐exclusive easement, which means others including the owner (now Cal Water) can make use of the property and easement area, including construction of the proposed pump station. As part of the pump station design, a system of retaining walls and protective fencing would be constructed/installed along the perimeter of the pump station facility, thereby precluding the potential for rock fall or landslide materials to reach Crenshaw Boulevard at this location. Because the pump station improvements would effectively address existing rock fall and landslide debris issues, the easement would be relinquished to Cal Water upon final permitting with the County, as it would no longer be necessary. With implementation of the proposed pump station and associated improvements, localized landslide and rock fall impacts would be less than significant,

Based on the proposed design of the pump station, in compliance with applicable engineering standards and seismic safety guidelines, impacts would be less than significant in this regard and no mitigation is required.

12 Ibid.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐65

Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017 b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. The construction and operation of the Project would occur along previously disturbed areas, which include public street rights‐of‐way, public utility easements, bridle trails, a public elementary school property, part of the Los Angeles County SCBG property, and other public and private property. During construction, short‐term erosion impacts could occur as a result of grading/excavation from construction activities. These exposed soils could potentially cause erosion impacts during windy conditions and from construction vehicles traveling through the site. Precipitation during the storm events could cause the exposed soils to run off into public rights‐of‐way and/or storm drainage systems. The contractor would be required to develop and implement a plan to control erosion of soil from the site during construction. Because the on‐street portions of the Project site have been previously excavated, and because the open space portion of the alignment would represent a small proportion of the overall construction project, with implementation of an erosion control plan significant losses of topsoil are not anticipated. The development and implementation of the erosion control plan would keep impacts resulting from construction to less than significant levels, particularly in off‐street portions of the alignment. The Project would operate as a closed system, and the majority of the project components would operate below grade; therefore, no additional impacts relative to soil erosion or loss of topsoil are expected and no mitigation is required. c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potential result in on‐ or off‐site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? No Impact. Most of the alignment is located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable when subject to strong seismic ground shaking. However, lateral spreading, subsidence, and collapse are not expected to occur along the proposed alignment, because the majority of the route was graded when the streets were originally developed. As discussed above, no portion of the proposed alignment is located within a liquefaction hazard area.13 Therefore, construction and operation of the Project are not expected to cause the local geologic units or soils to become unstable, or result in on‐ or off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse, and no mitigation is required. d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18‐1‐B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? No Impact. The Project alignment is located in an urbanized area that is currently developed, and construction activities and operation of project components would occur along previously disturbed street rights‐of‐way, private streets, easements, bridle trails, and other disturbed areas. The shallow soils in the vicinity of the Project area consist of localized, relatively thin deposits of Holocene to Quaternary‐age alluvium, colluvium and Marine terrace deposits, extensive landslides, and Tertiary sedimentary bedrock of the Altamira Shale Member of the Monterey Formation, some of which are considered potentially highly expansive. Expansive soil would be removed from the foundation area of the pump station site and pipeline excavations and would not be reused as compacted fill adjacent to structures or beneath paved areas. Furthermore, as discussed above, the Project would be constructed to meet all applicable Uniform Building

13 Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation Torrance Quadrangle, California Geological Survey, Earthquake Fault Zones Official Map Released July 1, 1986 and Seismic Hazard Zones Official Map Released March 25, 1999, http://gmw.conservation.ca.gov/SHP/EZRIM/Maps/TORRANCE_EZRIM.pdf.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐66

November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations

Code and seismic safety standards, and would incorporate engineered backfill during construction. As such, no significant impacts are anticipated with regard to expansive soils and no mitigation is required. e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. The project does not include the use or development of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐67

Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017

VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS The analysis and conclusions presented below are based, in part, on greenhouse gas emission data prepared by ESA for the Project, which is provided in Appendix E of this Initial Study.

Would the project: a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less than Significant Impact. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are called GHGs. The major concern with GHGs is that increases in their concentrations are causing global climate change. Global climate change is a change in the average weather on Earth that can be measured by wind patterns, storms, precipitation, and temperature. Although there is disagreement as to the rate of global climate change and the extent of the impacts attributable to human activities, most in the scientific community agree that there is a direct link between increased emissions of GHGs and long term global temperature increases.

The State defines GHGs as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride

(SF6), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). Because different GHGs have different global warming potentials (GWPs) and CO2 is the most common reference gas for climate change, GHG emissions are often quantified and reported as CO2 equivalents (CO2e). For example, CH4 has a GWP of 25

(over a 100‐year period); therefore, one metric ton (MT) of CH4 is equivalent to 25 MT of CO2 equivalents

(MTCO2e). The GWP ratios for the are available from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and are published in the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). By applying the GWP ratios, project‐ related CO2e emissions can be tabulated in metric tons (MT) per year. Large emission sources are reported in million metric tons (MMT) of CO2e.14

Some of the potential effects in California of global warming may include loss in snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more forest fires, and more drought years (CARB 2008). Globally, climate change has the potential to impact numerous environmental resources through potential, though uncertain, impacts related to future air temperatures and precipitation patterns. The projected effects of global warming on weather and climate are likely to vary regionally, but are expected to include the following direct effects (IPCC 2001):15  Higher maximum temperatures and more hot days over nearly all land areas;  Higher minimum temperatures, fewer cold days and frost days over nearly all land areas;  Reduced diurnal temperature range over most land areas;  Increase of heat index over land areas; and  More intense precipitation events.

14 A metric ton is 1,000 kilograms; it is equal to approximately 1.1 U.S. tons and approximately 2,204.6 pounds. 15 IPCC, 2001. Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis, Summery for Policy Makers, 2001. Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/index.php?idp=0. Accessed March 2017.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐68

November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations

Also, there are many secondary effects that are projected to result from global warming, including global rise in sea level, impacts to agriculture, changes in disease vectors, and changes in habitat and biodiversity. While the possible outcomes and the feedback mechanisms involved are not fully understood and much research remains to be done, the potential for substantial environmental, social, and economic consequences over the long term may be great.

California generated 440.4 MMTCO2e in calendar year 2015. Combustion of fossil fuel in the transportation sector was the single largest source of California’s GHG emissions in 2015, accounting for approximately 37 percent of total GHG emissions in the state. This sector was followed by the industrial sector (21 percent) and the electric power sector (including both in‐state and out‐of‐state sources) (19 percent).16

Impacts of GHGs are borne globally, as opposed to localized air quality effects of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants. The quantity of GHGs that it takes to ultimately result in climate change is not precisely known; however, it is clear that the quantity is enormous, and no single project would measurably contribute to a noticeable incremental change in the global average temperature, or to global, local, or micro climates. From the standpoint of CEQA, GHG impacts to global climate change are inherently cumulative.

The City has not adopted a threshold of significance for GHG emissions that would be applicable to this project. In December 2008, the SCAQMD adopted a 10,000 MTCO2e per year significance threshold for industrial facilities for projects in which the SCAQMD is the lead agency. Although SCAQMD has not formally adopted a significance threshold for GHG emissions generated by a Project for which SCAQMD is not the lead agency, or a uniform methodology for analyzing impacts related to GHG emissions on global climate change, in the absence of any industry‐wide accepted standards applicable to this project, the SCAQMD’s significance threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e per for industrial projects is the most relevant air district‐adopted GHG significance threshold and is used as a benchmark for the Project. It should be noted that the SCAQMD’s significance threshold of 10,000 MT/year CO2e for industrial projects is intended for long‐term operational GHG emissions. The SCAQMD has developed guidance for the determination of the significance of GHG construction emissions that recommends that total emissions from construction be amortized over an assumed project lifetime of 30 years and added to operational emissions and then compared to the threshold.17 The justification for the threshold is provided in SCAQMD’s Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans (“SCAQMD Interim GHG Threshold”).18 The SCAQMD Interim GHG Threshold identifies a screening threshold to determine whether additional analysis is required. As stated by the SCAQMD: “…the…screening level for stationary sources is based on an emission capture rate of 90 percent for all new or modified projects…the policy objective of [SCAQMD’s] recommended interim GHG significance threshold proposal is to achieve an emission capture rate of 90 percent of all new or modified stationary source projects. A GHG significance threshold based on a 90 percent emission capture rate may be more appropriate to address the long‐term

16 California Air Resources Board, California Greenhouse Gas 2000‐2015 Inventory by Scoping Plan Category – Summary. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm. Accessed June 2017. 17 SCAQMD, 2008. Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold, October 2008. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance- thresholds/ghgboardsynopsis.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed March 2017. 18 Ibid.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐69

Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017

adverse impacts associated with global climate change because most projects will be required to implement GHG reduction measures. Further, a 90 percent emission capture rate sets the emission threshold 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 emission threshold high enough to exclude small projects that will in aggregate contribute a relatively small fraction of the cumulative statewide GHG emissions. This assertion is based on the fact that [SCAQMD] staff estimates that these GHG emissions would account for slightly less than one percent of

future 2050 statewide GHG emissions target (85 [MMTCO2e per year]). In addition, these small projects may be subject to future applicable GHG control regulations that would further reduce their overall future contribution to the statewide GHG inventory. Finally, these small sources are already subject to [Best Available Control Technology (BACT)] for criteria pollutants and are more likely to be single‐permit facilities, so they are more likely to have few opportunities readily available to reduce GHG emissions from other parts of their facility.”

Thus, based on guidance from the SCAQMD, if an industrial project would emit GHGs less than 10,000

MTCO2e per year, the project would not be considered a substantial GHG emitter and GHG emission impact would be less than significant, requiring no additional analysis and no mitigation.

CEQA Guidelines 15064.4 (b)(1) states that a lead agency may use a model or methodology to quantify GHGs associated with a project. In September 2016, the SCAQMD in conjunction with CAPCOA released the latest version of the CalEEMod (Version 2016.3.2). The purpose of this model is to estimate construction‐source and operational‐source emissions from direct and indirect sources. Accordingly, the latest version of CalEEMod has been used for this project to estimate the project’s emission impacts.

Construction Emissions

Construction activities associated with the project would result in emissions of CO2 and to a lesser extent CH4 and N2O. Construction‐period GHG emissions were quantified based on the same construction schedule, activities, and equipment list as described in Issue III (b). To amortize the emissions over the life of the project, the SCAQMD recommends calculating the total GHG emissions attributable to construction activities, dividing it by the 30‐year project life, and then adding that number to a project’s annual operational‐phase GHG emissions. As such, construction emissions were amortized over a 30‐year period. Project construction would result in a total of approximately 1,505 MTCO2e of GHG emissions, which would amortize to approximately 50 MTCO2e per year over 30 years.

Operational Emissions

Operational activities associated with the project would result in emissions of CO2 and to a lesser extent CH4 and N2O. Operational sources of GHG emissions would include mobile sources from vehicles traveling to and from the site. As the project only expects to add few vehicles per month for sporadic maintenance, mobile emissions would only add trace amounts of GHG emissions annually and would not substantially contribute to annual operational GHG emissions. Electricity‐related GHG emissions are based on the maximum electricity demand for project equipment (pump station), assuming maximum operating loads and equipment running hours, and CO2 intensity factors for Southern California Edison.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐70

November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations

Emissions Summary

The annual GHG emissions for the project were estimated to be approximately 4,478.8 MTCO2e per year as summarized below in Table B‐12, Annual Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Direct and indirect emissions associated with the project are compared with the SCAQMD proposed screening level for industrial/stationary source projects, which is 10,000 MTCO2e. As shown in Table B‐12, the project would result in a less than significant impact with respect to GHG emissions.

TABLE B‐12 ANNUAL PROJECT GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Emission Source Emissions (metric tons per year)

CO2 CH4 N2O Total CO2e (reported as (reported as CO2e) CO2e) Amortized Construction Emissions 49.9 0.3 ‐‐ 50.1 Energy (Electricity) 4,388.8 4.5 11.2 4,404.5 Mobile Sources 24.1 0.05 ‐‐ 24.1 Annual CO2e (All Sources) 4,478.8 Significance Threshold 10,000 Threshold Exceeded? No

SOURCE: ESA 2017.

b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less than Significant Impact. Please refer to the discussion provided below.

Construction As discussed in Issue VII (a), the GHG emissions generated by the project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended threshold of 10,000 MT CO2e per year for industrial projects. The primary source of GHG emissions generated by project implementation would occur during construction, which would be short‐ term and temporary in nature. The Project would utilize contractors that are in compliance with regulations including the USEPA Heavy Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Regulation, CARB ACTM that limits heavy‐duty diesel motor vehicle idling, and the low carbon fuel standard. While the idling measure was adopted for the purpose of reducing diesel particulate matter emissions and reducing health risk impacts, the measure has co‐benefits of minimizing GHG emissions from unnecessary truck idling. The project would not conflict with these GHG reducing measures and regulations. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Operations Operation of the project would generate GHG emissions from electricity demand for project equipment (pump station), with electricity supplied by Southern California Edison. Southern California Edison is a covered entity19 under the Cap‐and‐Trade Program, which is a market‐based program regulated by CARB

19 “Covered Entity” means an entity within California that has one or more of the processes or operations and has a compliance obligation as specified in subarticle 7 of the Cap‐and‐Trade Regulation; and that has emitted, produced, imported, manufactured, or delivered in 2008 or any subsequent year more than the applicable threshold level specified in section 95812 (a) of the Regulation.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐71

Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017 under the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (codified under Health and Safety Code [HSC] Division 25.5) and designed to reduce GHG emissions from a variety of sectors including: transportation, industrial, in‐state and imported electrical generation, agriculture, residential, and commercial. The Cap‐and‐Trade Program covers approximately 85 percent of the State’s GHG emissions and provides regulatory assurance that California’s GHG reduction goals will be met.20 In other words, the Cap‐and‐Trade Program is a regulatory scheme explicitly adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions in accordance with the State’s GHG reduction goals. As the project’s electricity emissions would be supplied by Southern California Edison, the emissions would be reduced sector‐wide in accordance with the Cap‐and‐Trade Program. Thus, the project’s electricity‐related emissions would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

As previously discussed, the project only expects to add few vehicles per month for sporadic maintenance, mobile emissions would only add trace amounts of GHG emissions annually and would have no impact on the implementation of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) to reduce GHG emissions from vehicle travel. The project would also have no net effect on long‐term water consumption and associated GHG emissions from water supply, conveyance, distribution, and treatment.

For these reasons, the implementation of the Project would not generate GHG emissions that would hinder the State’s ability to achieve the GHG reduction goals under HSC Division 25.5. Furthermore, the Project would not conflict with or impede the future statewide GHG emission reductions goals. CARB has outlined a number of potential strategies for achieving the 2030 reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels. These potential strategies include renewable resources for half of the State’s electricity by 2030, reducing petroleum use in cars and trucks, reducing the carbon content of transportation fuels, continuation of the Cap‐and‐Trade Program, and adopting regulations for oil refineries. The project would comply with these future regulations, as promulgated by the USEPA, CARB, California Energy Commission (CEC), or other agency. As a result, the project would be expected to exhibit declining GHG emissions trajectory in‐line with future State GHG reductions goals codified in HSC Division 25.5 for 2030. As a result, this impact would be less than significant.

20 CARB, First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework, p. 86‐88, May 2014. Available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/updatedscopingplan2013.htm. Accessed March 2017.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐72

November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations

VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS The analysis and conclusions presented in the following section are based, in part, on information provided in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment ‐ Proposed Booster Station, Rolling Hills Estates (“Phase I ESA”), prepared by EEC International in April 2015, as well as the California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)’s Envirostor database. The Phase I ESA and Envirostor database search results are included in Appendix F of this Initial Study.

Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact. Though construction of the Project would involve the excavation and transport of paving materials (e.g., asphalt, concrete, road bed fill materials) that could possibly be contaminated by vehicle‐related pollution (e.g., oil, gasoline, diesel, other automotive chemicals), the Project does not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. All such paving and road bed materials would be transported and disposed of in accordance with applicable codes and regulations. Such transport and disposal is not expected to create a significant hazard to workers or the surrounding community. Operation of the Project would involve the storage and conveyance of potable water, and would not require the use, storage, or disposal of hazardous substances. Therefore, the Project would not create impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and no mitigation is required. b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Implementation of the Project would not involve the use, storage, or disposal of hazardous substances that could result in an upset and accident condition, as noted above. As discussed in further detail below under Item VIII.d, no listed hazardous materials sites with the potential to affect Project‐related construction activities or facilities were identified in site reconnaissance or various database searches performed for the Project (see Appendix F of this Initial Study for further information). However, based on the location of the pipeline alignment through the SCBG property, which was previously an active landfill site, additional investigation was conducted to confirm the absence of landfill materials or associated contaminants in soils along the proposed alignment in this area. The additional investigation confirmed that limited portions of the proposed alignment contains landfill materials or related contaminants, and thus construction of the proposed pipelines in this area could have potentially significant adverse impacts to construction workers or others in the area. Accordingly, the proposed alignments for the pipelines on the SCBG property have been relocated further to the southwest in order to reduce the potential for Project construction activities to encounter landfill materials or related contaminants. Furthermore, in addition to the relocation of the proposed alignments, Mitigation Measure HAZ‐1, provided below, would require the preparation and implementation of a Site Health and Safety Plan, subject to review and approval by the California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), that addresses risks to construction workers and the public associated with releases of landfill‐related contamination during construction activities. Given implementation of a DTSC‐

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐73

Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017 approved Site Health and Safety Plan, as required by Mitigation Measure HAZ‐1, impacts related to hazardous materials releases at the SCBG former landfill property would be reduced to less than significant.

It should be noted that the existing D‐500 system includes a 20‐inch pipeline that traverses the SCBC property in the area previously demonstrated to contain landfill materials. While this pipeline would be abandoned in place once the new 24‐inch pipeline is installed along the new alignment and operational, it would not present a risk to people or the environment. This is due to the fact that Cal Water would be required by the County to cap and plug (i.e. with brick and mortar) the ends of the pipeline segment and remove and/or cap any and all existing facilities (such as valves, air releases, etc.) down below grade. The County has also indicated that slurry backfill for the portion of pipeline within their jurisdiction (i.e., through SCBG/adjacent to the landfill) will also be required. Cal Water would comply with all County requirements via an agreement between the two parties. Nonetheless, in order to ensure that the pipeline segment is abandoned in accordance with County requirements, Mitigation Measure HAZ‐2 has been provided below. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ‐2, hazardous materials impacts related to abandonment of pipelines on the SCBG former landfill property would be less than significant.

For construction in all other areas outside the SCBG, before commencing any excavation, the construction contractor would be required to obtain an "Underground Service Alert Identification Number". To minimize potential damage to any existing utilities, the contractor would not be allowed to excavate until all utility owners are notified, and all substructures are clearly identified. As the Project would convey potable water, operation of the proposed facilities would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment involving the release of hazardous materials (i.e., potable water is treated and disinfected prior to distribution, and as such, is not considered hazardous). No reasonably foreseeable upset or accident conditions that could involve the release of hazardous materials into the environment are anticipated during operation of the proposed facilities.

Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ‐1 and HAZ‐2, less than significant impacts are anticipated to occur.

Mitigation Measures

HAZ‐1: Prior to issuance of any grading permit for construction activities within the South Coast Botanic Garden property, the applicant shall prepare and implement a Project‐specific Site Health and Safety Plan, subject to review and approval by DTSC. The Site Health and Safety shall address risks to construction workers and the public associated with the release of landfill materials or landfill gases, as appropriate, and would include, but would not be limited to, provisions for air monitoring, cessation of work activities if materials are encountered, emergency contacts, emergency response and evacuation, and containment/remediation, to the satisfaction of DTSC.

HAZ‐2: Prior to abandonment of the existing 20‐inch D‐500 system pipeline within the SCBG former landfill property, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the County of Los Angeles that identifies the County’s specific abandonment requirements for the pipeline segment.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐74

November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one‐quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above in the Air Quality section, operation of construction equipment would produce air contaminant emissions. None of these emissions are expected to be generated at levels that are considered hazardous. Construction of the Project would also involve the excavation and transport of paving materials (e.g., asphalt, concrete, road bed fill materials) that could possibly be contaminated by vehicle‐related pollution (e.g., oil, gasoline, diesel, other automotive chemicals). All such materials would be transported and disposed of in accordance with applicable codes and regulations. Such transport and disposal is not expected to involve acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste. Although several existing and proposed schools are located within one‐quarter mile of the Project, particularly the Dapplegray Elementary School, through which the Project’s pipeline alignment would traverse, construction and operation of the Project is not anticipated to have an adverse effect on these facilities, since construction activities (as mentioned above) and operation would not involve hazardous emissions or materials, and no known hazardous materials sites are located in proximity to school sites in the area (see detailed discussion below). The Project would convey potable water under pressure along existing public rights‐of‐way, bridle trails, the elementary school, the SCBG property, and other previously disturbed areas. If there were any emergency condition related to the Project, the result would involve the release of potable water, which poses no immediate health threats; therefore, impacts to schools are anticipated to be less than significant and no mitigation is required. d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. A government records search was conducted for the Project pump station site as part of the Phase I ESA, while a review of the DTSC Envirostor database was also conducted to assess potential hazardous materials sites along the proposed pipeline alignment. These database searches identified hazardous materials sites listed pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The Phase I ESA search was designed to meet the government records search requirements of the American Society for Testing and Materials’ (ASTM’s) Standard Practice for Phase I Environmental Site Assessments. According to the Phase I ESA for the pump station site, there are seven (7) listed hazardous materials sites within ½‐mile, none of which were concluded to pose a risk to the pump station site given the nature of the listing (i.e., regulated uses such as gas stations, dry cleaners, pharmacies, etc., which do not have any known contamination but are regulated for their use/handling of such materials) and their location relative to the pump station site.21 With regard to the pipeline alignment portion of the Project site, a review of the DTSC Envirostor database identified two listed hazardous materials sites in the area: (1) the SCBG property (former landfill) and (2) the Palos Verdes Landfill property across Crenshaw Boulevard to the northwest of the SCBG property (see Appendix F for the Envirostor database search results). According the database records, the SCBG property was listed for a Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) and associated soil contamination with solvents and/or non‐petroleum hydrocarbons, and cleanup was completed with a “case closed” status issued by DTSC as of February 6, 2002. The Palos Verdes Landfill property was listed for lead contamination in soil and groundwater (non‐drinking water), and as such DTSC has monitored an ongoing

21 EEC International. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment ‐ Proposed Booster Station, Rolling Hills Estates. Table 8‐1, Environmental Database Search Results. April 24, 2015. Page 14. Included in Appendix F of this Initial Study.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐75

Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017

Operation & Maintenance (O&M) Plan for the former landfill facility as of April 1999. With DTSC oversight and routine monitoring of landfill gas flaring emissions by the SCAQMD, risks associated with this facility are considered low, particularly since the Project would only involve equipment and material staging on this property for a temporary duration during Project construction activities. No grading, excavation, or other physical disturbance of soils within the Palos Verdes Landfill property would occur as a result of the Project.

Given the results of the various database searches, there exists limited potential of the listed sites immediately adjacent to the alignment to present a risk to human health (to nearby residents/employees or construction workers). Furthermore, all other listed sites (i.e., those sites not specifically addressed above) are located at considerable distance from the proposed alignment, and would not have the potential to affect, or be affected by, Project construction activities or operation. Therefore, given the status and location of the sites, it is concluded that the potential for environmental impacts to the Project relative to these sites is low. If, during construction or operation of the Project, contamination is discovered with the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment, the applicable regulatory agency would be contacted and the appropriate corrective actions undertaken to eliminate the hazard. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Less Than Significant Impact. Although not located within the boundaries of an airport land use plan, the northernmost portion of the Project alignment along Crenshaw Boulevard and the SCBG, is located approximately 1.2 miles southwest of the Zamperini Field, a City of Torrance owned public airport. However, construction of the Project would not affect airport activities due to the limited scale and temporary nature of construction activities. Once constructed, the operation of two new pipelines would occur passively and underground. The new pump station, a single story building with a footprint of approximately 1,800 square feet, would be constructed along the west side of Crenshaw Boulevard between existing curb and adjacent hillside located just to the northeast of Siler Spur Road. Despite the proximity of the northernmost Project alignment to Zamperini Field, none of the Project components would have the potential to interfere with, nor be affected by, airport operations. As such, neither construction nor operation of the Project would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard. f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for the people residing or working in the area? No Impact. The Project alignment is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip. As such, the Project would not result in a safety hazard for the people residing or working in the area. No impact would occur in this regard. g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would not impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or a local, state, or federal agency’s emergency evacuation plan, except for possible

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐76

November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations short‐term periods during construction of the Project, when roadway access may be limited in some areas. The on‐street construction activities would conform to all City of Rolling Hills Estates, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, County of Los Angeles, and respective Fire and Police Department vehicular access standards to allow adequate emergency access. The pump station would be constructed and operated entirely within the pump station site adjacent to Crenshaw Boulevard, and would not impair implementation or physically interfere with any existing emergency response or evacuation plans based on its passive operation (no on‐ site staffing or notable vehicle trips) and location completely outside the Crenshaw Boulevard right‐of‐way. The pipelines would also operate passively and would be located underground within public rights‐of‐way (e.g., roadways), bridle trails, public school property, the SCBG, and other public and private property. Any above‐ground appurtenances would be located outside of streets, trails, or other thoroughfares such that they would not impede access or mobility along these routes. Thus, the pipelines would not physically interfere with any existing emergency response or evacuation plans. No adverse impacts to emergency response or emergency evacuation plans are anticipated and no mitigation is required. h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact. Portions of the project site are located within selected wildfire hazard areas, most notably the pump station site. However, the Project would not involve the placement of people or populated structures within these areas, as the pipelines would be buried below ground and the pump station would not be staffed or otherwise occupied by people on a regular basis. Furthermore, the structures to be constructed as part of the Project (e.g., pump station and pipeline appurtenant structures) would not pose a risk of loss, injury, or death that could result from wildland fires, as these structures would be constructed of steel and concrete (non‐flammable) materials and would store and convey potable water, and thus would not in and of themselves create an increased fire risk. Furthermore, the pump station facility would be required to implement a Fuel Modification Plan approved by the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD)’s Fuel Modification Unit, which requires removal and thinning of vegetation immediately surrounding the structure, as well as review of building materials. As such, given compliance with LACFD Fuel Modification Unit requirements for the pump station, construction and operation of the Project would not expose any people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. Therefore, no impacts are expected and no mitigation is required.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐77

Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017

IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less Than Significant Impact. The construction and operation of the Project would not generate any wastewater or significantly increase urban runoff into existing storm drains, as the majority of improvements would be placed underground in previously disturbed areas. Based on the topography and geology of the Project site, and proposed depths of excavation for construction, it is not anticipated that substantial dewatering would be required. However, if localized incidental dewatering is ultimately required, it would generate minimal quantities of discharge water, which would be pumped into existing storm drains nearby. This discharge water is not expected to contain any contaminants that would cause its release to violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. All dewatering discharges would be carried out in accordance with all applicable requirements of RWQCB. The water that the Project would supply would meet all applicable water quality standards. Therefore, no significant impacts to water quality from construction or operation are anticipated and no mitigation is required. b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre‐existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned land uses for which permits have been granted)? Less Than Significant Impact. During construction, the only groundwater impacts that the Project could cause would be from dewatering activities. Based on the geology of the Project area, with generally shallow depths to bedrock and lack of sizeable alluvial deposits, as well as the limited excavation depths proposed under the Project, the likelihood of encountering groundwater during construction is considered low. However, in the event that groundwater is encountered during construction, dewatering is not expected to occur in quantities that would substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. The Project would serve to increase the reliability of the existing Cal Water potable water supply system, and would not contribute to the depletion of groundwater supplies, interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, or lower the groundwater table. No adverse impacts to groundwater supply or recharge are expected and no mitigation is required. c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on‐ or off‐site? Less Than Significant Impact. See Response to Item IV.d below.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐78

November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on‐ or off site? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would be constructed along public street rights‐of‐way, bridle trails, utility easements, and through a public school campus, the SCBG property, and other public and private areas, and would not permanently alter the drainage pattern of the area as it would be located almost entirely underground. Construction of the Project would not alter the course of a stream or river, and an erosion control plan, as part of a Project‐specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) approved by the RWQCB, would be developed and implemented throughout construction activities for all Project components, which would minimize the potential for erosion or siltation on‐ or off‐site. The open‐trench construction methods that are proposed would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff, or result in flooding on‐ or off‐site. Operation of the Project would occur below grade, with the exception of the pump station and above‐ground pipeline appurtenances that would be limited to a very small area, and thus would not affect the course of a stream or river.

Under existing conditions, stormwater at the pump station site includes runoff from the site itself, and from the adjacent hillside to the north of the site. Stormwater flows down the hillside to the pump station property and then Crenshaw Boulevard, where it is collected by an existing storm drain system in the street right‐of‐way. Flows generated on the adjacent hillside and on the pump station site itself would be collected, treated, and managed to comply with County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works’ Low Impact Development (LID) Standards. The pump station would be required to comply with all applicable County LID stormwater requirements, which require, among other things, that the Project result in no net increase in stormwater flows leaving the Project Site compared to pre‐Project conditions. Specifically, the pump station site would implement a number of design features for on‐site retention, as well as Best Management Practices (BMPs) per a Project‐specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) approved by the RWQCB to address water quality, which would ensure that stormwater flows entering the off‐site storm drain system do not exceed pre‐Project flows and that stormwater leaving the site does not contain substantial amounts of contaminants. Specifically, stormwater would be routed to below‐grade piping which would connect to the existing storm drain system in Crenshaw Boulevard. Various stormwater facilities and/or design features would be incorporated into the pump station design in order to manage stormwater, which are anticipated to include (1) pervious paving systems for all flat areas of the site adjacent to the pump station building in order to facilitate infiltration and reduce flow volumes generated on‐site; (2) stormwater runoff would be collected and routed to detention basins to provide additional infiltration/treatment and limit rate of flow leaving site; (3) a below‐grade infiltration system would be installed at the easterly end of the site to provide additional infiltration capacity in that area; and (4) if warranted, a hydrodynamic separator (continuous deflection system [CDS] unit or similar) may be installed to provide additional treatment capability. These features and facilities would preclude significant adverse effects associated with changes in drainage patterns associated with the Project. Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated and no mitigation is required.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐79

Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017 e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less Than Significant Impact. Limited dewatering, if any, that may be required for construction would contribute minimal amounts of discharge water. This dewatering discharge water is not expected to be released in substantial quantities and is not expected to exceed the existing or planned capacity of the local stormwater drainage system. Furthermore, as mentioned above, the discharge water is not anticipated to contain significant quantities of contaminants, and would be of limited volume. The Project would operate as a closed system that would not create or contribute runoff water. However, given that the pump station site is currently largely undeveloped, implementation of the Project would result in an increase in impervious surface area on the property and thus would incrementally increase stormwater runoff volumes and flow rates. Such increases in stormwater flows could potentially exceed the capacity of storm drain infrastructure serving the site if flow capacities in the area are currently constrained. While it is not currently known if any of the storm drain facilities serving the pump station site are operating at or near capacity during large storm events, the Project would not contribute to an exceedance of storm drain capacity as it would be required to comply with the County’s LID requirements, which require, among other things, that the Project result in no net increase in stormwater flows leaving the Project Site compared to pre‐Project conditions. As noted above, the pump station site would implement a number of design features for on‐site retention and water quality BMPs to address water quality. Given compliance with applicable County LID requirements, operation of the pump station would not result in adverse impacts to the existing storm drain system or water quality in receiving water bodies.

Consequently, impacts to stormwater systems from increased runoff volumes or polluted runoff due to construction and operation of the Project would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less Than Significant Impact. Please refer to Response IX.e above regarding stormwater BMPs and water quality management. Potential short‐term erosion effects could occur during site excavation and construction activities associated with the proposed pipelines and pump station that could temporarily affect surface water quality with runoff. Due to the linear nature of the area of the proposed pipelines and limited area of ground disturbance associated with its construction, this effect is expected to be minimal. Construction of the proposed pump station would require limited localized excavation, and construction activities would occur entirely within the pump station site immediately adjacent to the existing Crenshaw Boulevard right‐of‐way and 165‐foot bluff. Given the limited area of ground disturbance, and the fact that pump station construction would occur within a discreet area, impacts to water quality from construction‐ related runoff are expected to be minimal. Furthermore, for both the pipelines and pump station components of the Project, an approval erosion control plan would be developed and implemented during construction activities that would minimize transport of soil materials off‐site. On‐site soils would be stabilized and drainage structures (temporary and permanent) would be constructed, as applicable, to control the flow of runoff and minimize the potential for erosion. If dewatering is necessary during construction, the water would be treated, as necessary, and discharged into the nearby storm drain system. Operation of the Project would be a closed system and therefore not substantially degrade or affect water quality. All construction and operational activities that would potentially affect water quality will be performed under all applicable rules, regulations and standards (e.g., Clean Water Act, California Water Code,

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐80

November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations and Basin Plan for the Los Angeles Region). A less than significant impact is anticipated relative to water quality and no mitigation is required. g. Place housing within a 100‐year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100‐year flood area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Less Than Significant Impact (g‐h). See Response to Item IV.i below. i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Less Than Significant Impact. The construction and operation of the Project would not involve the placement of people or structures (including housing) within a 100‐year flood hazard area, or impede or redirect flood flows. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the entire Project site is designated as Zone X, which are areas determined to be outside of the 500‐year flood risk.22 The Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding. In the event one of the pipelines fails, safety valves throughout the water distribution system may be shut off (as deemed necessary by Cal Water) in response to a loss of pressure and to isolate the break. The volume of potable water released in such an event would be limited to the amount of water contained in the section of pipeline between the shut‐off valves, which is not expected to yield enough water to pose a threat to life or property. Similarly, the proposed pump station would not include a large reservoir. Therefore, flooding impacts are expected to be less than significant and no mitigation is required. j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Less Than Significant Impact. Project is not subject to seiche‐ or tsunami‐related inundation as it is not located within the range of a seiche hazard zone or tsunami hazard zone, based on the lack of large open water bodies near the Project site and overall elevation of the pipeline alignment and pump station site. However, given the location of the alignment and pump station site within hillside areas, which generally comprise the entire Project site, there may be some limited potential for mudflows to occur during storm events. Nonetheless, given that the pipeline segments and pump station would be designed and constructed to meet applicable building codes and would incorporate stormwater drainage infrastructure, as necessary, the potential for impacts to the pump station and/or pipelines from mudflows is expected to be very low, and the implementation of the Project would have little, if any, potential to result in mudflow events. Therefore, the potential impact to the Project, during either construction or operation, from inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

22 Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA Flood Map Service Center. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No. 06037C1940F. Available at: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=palos%20verdes%2C%20ca#searchresultsanchor. Accessed July 11, 2017.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐81

Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017

X. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? No Impact. Construction impacts from the Project would be short‐term and would occur underground within public street rights‐of‐way, public utility easements, bridle trails, a public elementary school property, part of the Los Angeles County SCBG property, and other public and private property. The Project would operate passively within the aforementioned areas. As such, the Project would not physically divide an established community. No impact would occur in this regard. b. Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site includes the entire proposed pipeline alignment and pump station site along Crenshaw Boulevard, which includes various public street rights‐of‐way, public utility easements, bridle trails, a public elementary school property, part of the Los Angeles County SCBG property, and other public and private property within portions of the City of Rolling Hills Estates, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and unincorporated County of Los Angeles through which the proposed alignment traverses. While the General Plan land use designations and zoning designations within the Project site vary substantially, it is important to note that the proposed pipeline and pump station, once constructed, would operate passively and would not have any effect on existing land use or zoning designations. During construction, it is expected that Project‐related activities would result in the removal of a limited number of trees, which would be replaced in‐kind in accordance with the tree regulations of each affected jurisdiction. In addition, the City of Rolling Hills Estates’ General Plan includes policies that relate to preservation of Pepper Trees along Palos Verdes Drive North. While the Project, as mentioned above, could result in the removal or relocation of specific trees in order to allow for construction of the proposed pipelines, these trees would be replaced with similar specimens in essentially the same location such that the alignment would be restored to pre‐Project conditions. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with City policies related to preservation of trees along the Palos Verdes Drive North scenic corridor. Similarly, given the Applicant’s commitment to replace trees and restore the Project alignment to pre‐Project conditions, as well as the passive nature of Project operation once constructed, no conflicts with applicable policies or regulations are expected to occur.

In addition, it should be noted that an existing slope and drainage easement is located on the slope area immediately adjacent to the pump station site, which provides the County of Los Angeles access to and use of this slope area for construction and ongoing maintenance, cut/fill, and operation of Crenshaw Boulevard. It is a single easement which allows the County, as needed, to be able to make cuts and/or fills on the hillside property if dirt, debris or rock falls from the hillside onto/adjacent to Crenshaw Boulevard. The easement was granted to the County from the previous property owner when County built Crenshaw Boulevard in the 1960s. It is a non‐exclusive easement, which means others including the owner (now Cal Water) can make use of the property and easement area. Even so, it is important to note that only a minor portion of this easement would be affected by the construction of the pump station at this location, and further, the

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐82

November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations easement would be relinquished upon receipt of final permitting with the County, as installation of protective fencing along the northwestern boundary of the pump station facility (see discussion above regarding landslides in Response VI.a.(iv)) would preclude the potential for localized landslides or debris to reach the Crenshaw Boulevard right‐of‐way and thus the easement for this purpose would no longer be needed. Thus, implementation of the Project would not result in any conflicts with existing easements or other land use restrictions in the Project area.

As such, impacts regarding conflicts with applicable plans, policies, and regulations would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed under Response IV.F, above, a portion of the study area is within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which is signatory to the Rancho Palos Verdes Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) Subarea Plan. A small portion of the southernmost extent of the study area along Crenshaw Boulevard, from Indian Peak Road to Crest Road, is located within the Subarea Plan Boundary. As all Project‐associated impacts within this area will be temporary impacts within the existing paved road along Crenshaw Boulevard and no impacts will occur to any native habitat or biological resources, the Project does not conflict with the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP, and no mitigation is required. The Project does not conflict with any other adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐83

Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017

XI. MINERAL RESOURCES

Would the project:

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

No Impact. The Project site is currently developed with urban uses. No portion of the Project alignment or surrounding area is considered a known mineral resource area and no mineral resource extraction occurs in the Project vicinity. As such, the Project would not have the potential to result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. No impact would occur.

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

No Impact. The Project site is currently developed with urban uses, with no portion of the Project alignment or surrounding area considered a known mineral resource area and no mineral resource extraction occurs in the Project vicinity. As such, the Project would not result in the loss of availability of, or access to, a locally‐ important mineral resource recovery site. No impact would occur.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐84

November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations

XII. NOISE The analysis and conclusions presented below are based, in part, on noise modeling data and Generator Noise Technical Memorandum (October 2017) prepared by ESA for the Project, which are provided in Appendix G of this Initial Study.

Would the project result in:

a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Noise is defined as unwanted sound; however, not all unwanted sound rises to the level of a potentially significant noise impact. To differentiate unwanted sound from potentially significant noise impacts, the Cities of Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, and Rancho Palos Verdes, and the County of Los Angeles have established noise regulations that take into account noise‐sensitive land uses. The following analysis evaluates potential noise impacts at nearby noise‐ sensitive land uses in each jurisdiction resulting from construction and operation of the Project. As discussed below, implementation of mitigation measures would ensure a less than significant impact with respect to construction noise.

Noise Principles and Descriptors Sound can be described as the mechanical energy of a vibrating object transmitted by pressure waves through a liquid or gaseous medium (e.g., air). Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound (i.e., loud, unexpected, or annoying sound). Acoustics is defined as the physics of sound. In acoustics, the fundamental scientific model consists of a sound (or noise) source, a receiver, and the propagation path between the two. The loudness of the noise source and obstructions or atmospheric factors affecting the propagation path to the receiver determines the sound level and characteristics of the noise perceived by the receiver. Acoustics addresses primarily the propagation and control of sound.

Sound, traveling in the form of waves from a source, exerts a sound pressure level (referred to as sound level) that is measured in decibels (dB), which is the standard unit of sound amplitude measurement. The dB scale is a logarithmic scale (i.e., not linear) that describes the physical intensity of the pressure vibrations that make up any sound, with 0 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of human hearing and 120 to 140 dB corresponding to the threshold of pain. In a non‐controlled environment, a change in sound level of 3 dB is considered “just perceptible,” a change in sound level of 5 dB is considered “clearly noticeable,” and a change in 10 dB is perceived as a doubling of sound volume.23 Pressure waves traveling through air exert a force registered by the human ear as sound.

The typical human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies of the audible sound spectrum. As a consequence, when assessing potential noise impacts, sound is measured using an electronic filter that deemphasizes the frequencies below 1,000 hertz (Hz) and above 5,000 Hz in a manner corresponding to the human ear’s decreased sensitivity to extremely low and extremely high frequencies. This method of

23 Bies & Hansen, 1988. Bies, D.A. and C.H. Hansen, Engineering Noise Control, (1988).

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐85

Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017 frequency weighting is referred to as A‐weighting and is expressed in units of A‐weighted decibels (dBA). A‐ weighting follows an international standard methodology of frequency de‐emphasis and is typically applied to community noise measurements.

An individual’s noise exposure is a measure of noise over a period of time, whereas a noise level is a measure of noise at a given instant in time. Community noise varies continuously over a period of time with respect to the contributing sound sources of the community noise environment. Community noise is primarily the product of many distant noise sources, which constitute a relatively stable background noise exposure, with the individual contributors unidentifiable. The background noise level changes throughout a typical day, but does so gradually, corresponding with the addition and subtraction of distant noise sources such as traffic. What makes community noise variable throughout a day, besides the slowly changing background noise, is the addition of short‐duration, single‐event noise sources (e.g., aircraft flyovers, motor vehicles, sirens), which are readily identifiable to the individual. These successive additions of sound to the community noise environment change the community noise level from instant to instant, requiring the measurement of noise exposure over a period of time to legitimately characterize a community noise environment and evaluate cumulative noise impacts.

The time‐varying characteristic of environmental noise over specified periods of time is described using statistical noise descriptors in terms of a single numerical value, expressed as dBA. The most frequently used noise descriptors are summarized below:

Leq: The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is used to describe the noise level over a specified period of time,

typically 1‐hour, i.e., Leq(1), expressed as Leq. The Leq may also be referred to as the “average” sound level.

Lmax: The maximum, instantaneous noise level.

Lmin: The minimum, instantaneous noise level.

Lx: The noise level exceeded for specified percentage (x) over a specified time period; i.e., L50 and L90 represent the noise levels that are exceeded 50 and 90 percent of the time specified, respectively.

Ldn: The Ldn is the average noise level over a 24‐hour period, including an addition of 10 dBA to the measured hourly noise levels between the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to account nighttime noise

sensitivity. Ldn is also termed the day‐night average noise level or DNL,

CNEL: Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), is the average noise level over a 24‐hour period that includes an addition of 5 dBA to the measured hourly noise levels between the evening hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and an addition of 10 dBA to the measured hourly noise levels between the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to account for noise sensitivity during the evening and nighttime hours, respectively.

Los Angeles County General Plan Noise Element The overall purpose of the Noise Element of a General Plan is to protect people from the harmful and annoying effects of exposure to excessive noise. The Noise Element of the Los Angeles County General Plan (2014) focuses on noise issues associated with transportation, including airports, highways, and railroads.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐86

November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations

The County has adapted Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise to develop the County’s exterior noise standards, discussed below.

Los Angeles County Code The Los Angeles County Code (LACC) Noise Restrictions are provided in Chapter 12.08, Noise Control of the LACC, which provides procedures and criteria for the measurement of the sound level of “offending” noise sources. The LACC outlines exterior noise standards for noise zones I though IV based on land use type: noise‐sensitive areas, residential properties, commercial properties, and industrial properties. The County’s maximum exterior noise standards, set forth in LACC Section 12.08.390, are provided in Table B‐13, Los Angeles County Presumed Ambient Noise Levels.

TABLE B‐13 LOS ANGELES COUNTY PRESUMED AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS

Daytime Hours Nighttime Hours Noise (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) Zone Zone dBA (Leq) dBA (Leq)

Noise‐sensitive I area 45 45 II Residential 50 45 III Commercial 60 55 IV Industrial 70 70

SOURCE: LACC , Section 12.08.390.

For residential‐zoned areas, the presumed ambient noise level is 50 dBA during the daytime and 45 dBA during the nighttime. The following standards are used to evaluate compliance:

Standard No. 1: Exterior noise cannot exceed levels set forth in Table B‐13 for a cumulative period of more than 30 minutes in any hour. Standard No. 2: Exterior noise cannot exceed levels set forth in Table B‐13 plus 5 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any hour. Standard No. 3: Exterior noise cannot exceed levels set forth in Table B‐13 plus 10 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 5 minutes in any hour. Standard No. 4: Exterior noise cannot exceed levels set forth in Table B‐13 plus 15 dBA for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour. Standard No. 5: Exterior noise cannot exceed levels set forth in Table B‐13 plus 20 dBA at any time.

If ambient noise levels exceed the exterior noise levels in Table B‐13, then the aforementioned standards can be adjusted by substituting relevant noise levels in Table B‐13 with the following ambient measurements:

Standard No. 6: Ambient L50, the noise level exceeded 50% of the time over an hour period. Standard No. 7: Ambient L25, the noise level exceeded 25% of the time over an hour period. Standard No. 8: Ambient L8.3, the noise level exceeded 8.3% of the time over an hour period.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐87

Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017

Standard No. 9: Ambient L1.7, the noise level exceeded 1.7% of the time over an hour period. Standard No. 10: Ambient L0, the maximum noise level over an hour period.

LACC Section 12.08.440 prohibits construction between the hours of 7:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M., and at any time on Sundays or holidays, given that it creates a noise disturbance across a residential or commercial real‐ property line. Table B‐14, Los Angeles County Permissible Construction Equipment Noise at Receptor, outlines the maximum noise levels permissible by construction equipment at affected buildings depending on land use. These noise thresholds pertain to two timeframes: daytime hours from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. daily (except Sundays and holidays), and nighttime hours from 8:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. daily (or all day Sundays and holidays).

TABLE B‐14 LOS ANGELES COUNTY PERMISSIBLE CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE AT RECEPTOR

Daytime Hours Nighttime Hours (7 a.m. to 8 p.m.) (8 p.m. to 7 a.m.) Equipment Type Receptor Type dBA (Leq) dBA (Leq)

Single‐family Residential 75 60 Mobile Multi‐family Residential 80 64 short‐term operation Semi‐ (less than 10 days) residential/Commercial 85 70 Business Structures 85 85 Single‐family Residential 60 50 Stationary Multi‐family Residential 65 55 long‐term operation (more than 10 days) Semi‐ residential/Commercial 70 60

SOURCE: LACC, Section 12.08.440.

In addition to noise, LACC Section 12.08.350 provides a presumed vibration perception threshold of 0.01 inches per second (in/sec) root mean square (RMS); however, this applies to ground‐borne vibrations from long‐term operational activities, such as surface traffic, and not to short‐term activities such as construction. Therefore, the 0.01 in/sec RMS vibration criteria is used in connection with the Project’s operation‐related vibration impacts. The vibration level of 0.01 in/sec RMS is equivalent to 0.04 in/sec peak particle velocity (PPV).

City of Rolling Hills Estates General Plan Noise Element

The Noise Element of the City of Rolling Hills Estates current General Plan24 outlines the noise environment, effects of noise on people, primary noise sources within the City, potential strategies for mitigating excessive noise sources. The City’s Noise Element includes the following policies:

1. Develop and implement a comprehensive community Noise Ordinance to provide mitigation of noise‐ generating uses.

24 City of Rolling Hills Estates, 1992. General Plan Noise Element. Available: http://ci.rolling‐hills‐ estates.ca.us/government/planning/general‐plan. Accessed April 2017.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐88

November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations

2. Require the location of public and private residential activities to limit the noise impact on adjacent residences.

3. Require the location of animal holding areas to minimize noise spillover onto surrounding properties.

4. Promote the use of landscaping to obscure noise production form roadways and adjacent properties.

5. Reduce transportation noise through strict enforcement of speed limits in the City.

6. Evaluate noise generated by construction activities, and appropriately regulate through a Community Noise Ordinance.

City of Rolling Hills Estates Municipal Code Section 8.32.050 of the City of Rolling Hills Estates Municipal Code establishes ambient exterior noise levels for the purpose of establishing standards. For residential properties, these ambient noise levels are 55 dBA during the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., and 45 dBA during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Section 8.32.050 goes on to state that “no person shall operate or use to be operated any source of sound at any location within the city, or allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such person which causes the noise level when measured on any other property to exceed the following standards:”

Other provisions of the City of Rolling Hills Estates Municipal Code that apply to the Project include the following:

Section 8.32.180 – It is unlawful to operate or permit the operation of any mechanically‐powered saw, sander, drill, grinder, mower, lawn or garden tool, or similar tool between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. so as to create a noise disturbance which violates the provisions of Sections 8.32.050, 8.32.060, 8.32.070, or 8.32.085. Section 8.32.200 – It is unlawful for any person to operate any machinery, equipment, pump, fan, air‐ conditioning apparatus, or similar mechanical device so as to create any noise that violates the provisions of Sections 8.32.050, 8.32.060, 8.32.070, or 8.32.085. Section 8.32.210 – Any person within the city shall be permitted to operate power construction equipment or use tools for the purpose of conducting construction or repair work on buildings, structures or projects only between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday, and between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. Construction activities are not allowed at any time on Sundays and holidays. No queuing of trucks or arrival of construction materials and/or workers to a construction site shall be permitted outside the permitted construction hours and days. No construction activity shall violate the noise standards set forth in Sections 8.32.050, 8.32.060, 8.32.070, or 8.32.085. The planning commission or city council shall retain the right to impose more restrictive hours of construction upon any projects involving major construction activity. A variance shall be required for any type of construction which will violate the noise standards set forth in Sections 8.32.050, 8.32.060, or 8.32.070. Section 8.32.230 ‐ Variances – The city manager is authorized to grant variances from any provision of this chapter, subject to terms and conditions such as, but not limited to, area, noise levels, and time limits as the city manager determines are appropriate to protect the public health, safety and welfare from the noise emanating therefrom. This section shall, in no way, affect the duty to obtain any permit required by law for such activities.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐89

Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017

A. Application. Any person seeking a variance pursuant to this section shall file an application with the city manager. The application shall contain information which demonstrates that bringing the source of sound or activity for which the variance is sought into compliance with this chapter would constitute an unreasonable hardship on the applicant, on the community, or on other persons. The application shall be accompanied by a fee in an amount set by council resolution. A separate application shall be filed for each noise source; provided, however, several fixed sources on a single property may be combined into one application. B. Notice. Notice of an application for a variance shall be posted in City Hall for at least five days. Any individual who claims to be adversely affected by allowance of the variance may file a statement with the city manager containing any information to support his claim. C. Issuance or Denial. In determining whether to grant or deny the application the city manager shall balance the hardship on the applicant, the community and other persons of not granting the variance against the adverse impact on the health, safety and welfare of persons affected, the adverse impact on property affected, and any other adverse impacts of granting the variance. Applicants for variances and persons contesting variances may be required to submit such information as the city manager may reasonably require. In granting or denying an application, the city manager shall keep on public file a copy of the decision and the reasons for denying or granting the variance. D. Conditions. Variances shall be granted by notice to the applicant containing all necessary conditions, including a time limit on the permitted activity. The variance shall not become effective until all conditions are agreed to by the applicant. Noncompliance with any conditions of the variance shall terminate the variance and subject the person holding it to those provisions of this chapter for which the variance was granted. E. Time Limitations. A variance will not exceed sixty days from the date on which it was granted. Application for extension of time limits specified in variances or for modification of other substantial conditions shall be treated like applications for initial variances under subsection A of this section. F. Appeal. Any applicant or other person aggrieved by the decision of the city manager may appeal the decision to the city council in accordance with the provisions of Section 17.66.090. City of Rolling Hills General Plan Noise Element

The Noise Element of the City of Rolling Hills current General Plan25 outlines the noise environment, effects of noise on people, primary noise sources within the City, potential strategies for mitigating excessive noise sources. The City’s Noise Element includes the following policies:

1. Adopt the acceptable noise levels for land uses established by the California Department of Health and as adopted by the City of Rolling Hills Estates in the Noise Element.

2. Limit the time and levels of noise from construction and maintenance equipment and activities especially in residential areas.

3. The City will continue to implement the City’s Noise Control Ordinance.

4. Continue to encourage good acoustical design in new construction.

25 City of Rolling Hills, 1990. General Plan Noise Element. Available: http://www.rolling‐hills.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/121. Accessed April 2017.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐90

November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations

The Noise Element also establishes the acceptable noise levels for residential land uses at 55 dBA during the day and 45 dBA during the night, and nonresidential land uses at 65 dBA during the day and 55 dBA during the night.

City of Rolling Hills Municipal Code Title 15, Chapter 15.36, Section 020 (15.36.020) of the City of Rolling Hills Municipal Code, Conduct of construction and landscaping activities, states that, “There shall be no work of improvement or the operation of mechanical equipment used in connection with work of improvement within the territorial limits of the City except on Monday through Saturday of each week, commencing at the hour of seven a.m. and ending at the hour of six p.m. on each day.”

City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan Noise Element

The Noise Element of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes current General Plan26 outlines the noise environment, effects of noise on people, primary noise sources within the City, potential strategies for mitigating excessive noise sources. The Noise Element includes the following policies:

1. Encourage through traffic to existing arterials and collectors so that local roads are not used as by‐ passes or short‐cuts in order to minimize noise.

2. Controls traffic flows of heavy construction vehicles en route to and from construction sites to minimize noise.

3. Encourage State law enforcement agencies such as the California Highway Patrol to vigorously enforce all laws which call for the control and/or reduction of noise emissions.

4. Encourage the State and Federal governments to actively control and reduce vehicle noise emissions.

5. Develop an ordinance to control noise commensurate with local ambiance.

6. Maintain current and up‐to‐date information on noise control measures, on both fixed and vehicular noise sources.

7. Coordinate with all public agencies, especially our adjoining jurisdictions to study and/or control noise emissions.

8. Mitigate impacts generated by steady state noise intrusion (e.g. with land strip buffers, landscaping, and site design).

9. Regulate land use so that there is a minimal degree of noise impact on adjacent; and uses.

10. Require strict noise attenuation measures where appropriate.

11. Review noise attenuation measures applicable to home, apartment, and office building construction, make appropriate proposals for the city zoning ordinance, and make appropriate recommendations for modifying the Los Angeles County Building Code as it applies to the city.

26 City of Rancho Palos Verdes, 1975.General Plan Noise Element. Available: http://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/5755. Accessed April 2017.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐91

Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017

12. Require the minimization of noise emissions from commercial activities by screening and buffering techniques.

City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code The City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, Title 17, Chapter 17.12, Section 030 (17.12.030), Development Standards, stated that within the commercial districts, certain restrictions on noise associated with deliveries and mechanical equipment have been identified. It states that “Unless otherwise specified in an approved conditional use permit or other discretionary approval, all deliveries of commercial goods and supplies; trash pick‐up, including the use of parking lot trash sweepers; and the operation of machinery or mechanical equipment which emits noise levels in excess of 65 dBA, as measured from the closest property line to the mechanical equipment, shall only be allowed on commercial properties which abut a residential district, between the hours of seven a.m. and seven p.m. Monday through Sunday.

Title 17, Chapter 17.56, Section 020 (17.56.020), Conduct of construction and landscaping activities, states that, “It is unlawful to carry on construction grading or landscaping activities or to operate heavy equipment except between the hours of seven a.m. and six p.m. Monday through Friday and between nine a.m. to five p.m. on Saturday. No such activity shall be permitted on Sunday or the legal holidays listed in Section 17.96.920 (Holiday, Legal) of this code, unless a special construction permit is obtained from the director. Said special construction permit must be requested at least 48 hours before such work is to begin. Emergency work, as defined in Section 17.96.630 (Emergency Work) of this code, and typical residential activities, such as lawn mowing, gardening (without the use of weed and debris blowers), and minor home repair/maintenance, shall be exempted from these time and day restrictions. The hours of operation for weed and debris blowers are specified in Chapter 8.16 (Weed and Debris Blowers) of this code.”

Title 8, Chapter 04, Section 010 (8.04.010) of the City’s Municipal Code states that “Except as hereinafter provided, Title 11, entitled ‘Health and Safety,’ of the Los Angeles County Code, as amended and in effect on September 1, 1998, is adopted by reference as the health code of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and may be cited as such.”

However, because the City has not adopted any quantitative noise level criteria for the CEQA review process, the noise standards recommended in the State’s guidelines, as shown below in Table B‐15, Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Sources, are used in this Noise Impact Analysis. Typically, residential uses in areas exposed to traffic noise levels exceeding 65 dBA CNEL is not considered acceptable. Mitigation measures would need to be incorporated to ensure that the State’s 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard for residential uses is achieved.

Noise Sensitive Receptors The Project site is located on an approximately 7‐mile alignment on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, which includes portions of the Cities of Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates and Rancho Palos Verdes, as well as unincorporated portions of the County of Los Angeles. The Project site is generally bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and south, Western Avenue to the east, and Pacific Coast Highway (State Route 1) to the north. Sensitive receptors surround the entire Project site, and these uses are adjacent to the 7‐mile pipeline alignment on both sides. Such ssensitive uses include residential units, places of worship, and schools. With regard to the pump station site, noise sensitive receptors include residences along adjacent bluff tops and hillsides along Crenshaw Boulevard, which are illustrated below in Figure B‐8, Noise Measurement Location and Noise Sensitive Receivers.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐92

R12 !. R11 !. R10 !. Beechgate Dr R9 !. R8 !.

R7 !. R13 !. R6 R14 !. !. R5 !. R15 !. R4 !.

ST1 Crenshaw Blvd R3 !. !. Canyon View Ln R2 R16 !. !.

R1 R17 !. !.

R18 !.

R19 !.

Project Site !. Noise Measurement Location 0 200 N !. Noise Sensitive Receivers Feet Path: U:\GIS-PCR\GIS_ACTIVE\Cal_Water_Palos_Verdes\Projects\2017 Initial- Study\Fig B-8 - Noise Measurement Loc and Noise Sensitive Receivers_11-16-17.mxd, dkaneshiro 11/16/2017

SOURCE: ESRI, ESA 2017, Black & Veatch 2017 PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project

Figure B-8 Noise Measurement Location and Noise Sensitive Receivers Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017

TABLE B‐14 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY FOR COMMUNITY NOISE SOURCES

Land Use Category Noise Exposure (Ldn or CNEL, dBA) 55 60 65 70 75 80

Residential – Single‐Family, Duplex, Mobile Home

Residential – Multiple Family

Transient Lodging – Motel, Hotel

School, Library, Church, Hospital, Nursing Home

Auditorium, Concert Hall, Amphitheater

Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports

Playground, Neighborhood Park

Golf Course, Riding Stable, Water Recreation, Cemetery

Office Building, Business Commercial and Professional

Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture

NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE: Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE: New construction or development should be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirement must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. Construction costs to make the indoor environmental acceptable would be prohibitive and the outdoor environment would not be usable. Source: State of California, General Plan Guidelines, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, 2003

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐94

November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations

TABLE B‐16 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AND ESTIMATED NOISE LEVELS

Estimated Usage Factor Reference Noise Level at 50 feet Type of Equipment (%) (dBA, Lmax) Air Compressors 20% 78 Compactor 20% 80 Crane 40% 81 Dump/Haul Trucks 20% 76 Excavator 40% 81 Forklift 10% 75 Grader 40% 85 Paver 50% 77 Rubber Tired Dozers 40% 84 Rubber Tired Loaders 50% 79 Sweeper/Scrubbers 10% 82 Tractor / Loader / Backhoe 25% 84 Trencher 40% 84 Welder 40% 74

SOURCE: FHWA 2006; and ESA 2017.

Construction Noise Construction of the Project is anticipated to begin in early 2018 and take approximately two years to complete. The Project is anticipated to be fully operational at the end of 2019. The analysis includes consideration of construction noise effects on noise sensitive receivers in the vicinity of the Project site due to the operation of construction equipment (on‐site construction activities) and haul trucks (off‐site construction activities).

On‐Site Construction Activities Noise from construction activities would be generated by the operation of vehicles and equipment involved during various stages of construction: grading, trenching, and paving. The noise levels generated by construction equipment would vary depending on factors such as the type and number of equipment, the specific model (horsepower rating), the construction activities being performed, and the maintenance condition of the equipment. Individual pieces of construction equipment anticipated to be used during Project construction could produce maximum noise levels of 74 dBA to 85 dBA at a reference distance of 50 feet from the noise source, as shown in Table B‐16, Construction Equipment and Estimated Noise Levels. These maximum noise levels would occur when equipment is operating under full power conditions. The estimated usage factor for the equipment is also shown in Table B‐16. The usage factors are based on the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide (FHWA 2006).27

To more accurately characterize construction‐period noise levels, the average (Hourly Leq) noise level associated with each construction phase is estimated based on the quantity, type, and usage factors for each

27 FHWA, 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model – RCNM and User Guide, (2006). Available: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/rcnm/. Accessed April 2017.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐95

Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017 type of equipment used during each construction phase and are typically attributable to multiple pieces of equipment operating simultaneously. Over the course of a construction day, the highest noise levels would be generated when multiple pieces of construction equipment are operated concurrently.

As the Project site impacts sensitive receptors located in areas with different noise standards, the analysis below determines the potential impacts on sensitive receptors in each respective jurisdiction.

Unincorporated Areas of Los Angeles County

The Project’s estimated construction noise levels were calculated for a scenario in which a reasonable number of construction equipment was assumed to be operating simultaneously, given the physical size of the site and logistical limitations, and with the noisiest equipment located at the construction area nearest to the affected receptors to present a conservative impact analysis. The nearest sensitive receptor in the area is 60 feet away from the Project site. Table B‐17, Estimated Construction Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptors, presents the estimated total noise level for the combined Project construction equipment, as all construction sub‐phases could occur simultaneously.

TABLE B‐17 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS AT SENSITIVE RECEPTORS

UNINCORPORATED LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Distance from Closest Edge Estimated Maximum of Construction Activity to Construction Noise Levels Location Noise Receptor (ft.) b Construction Phase (dBA Leq)

Single‐family residential Pump Station & uses south of Pump 60 67 Pipe Reach #5 Station

a The distance represents the nearest construction area on the Project site to the property line of the offsite receptor.

SOURCE: ESA 2017.

These estimated noise levels, shown in Table B‐17, assume that the Project contractor(s) would equip the construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained noise mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards. The estimated noise levels represent a conservative worst‐case noise scenario where the construction activities are analyzed with several of the equipment simultaneously in use along the perimeter of the construction area, whereas construction typically would involve equipment in use throughout the Project site maintaining safe equipment operating distances, and resulting in most equipment in use further away from noise‐sensitive receptors.

As shown in Table B‐17, estimated maximum short‐term construction noise level at 60 feet from the Project site would measure 67 dBA. The maximum noise levels permissible by stationary construction equipment at single family residential area under LACC Section 12.08.440 is 60 dB, which is exceeded by the 67 dBA calculated. However, with implementation of mitigation measures NOISE‐1 and NOISE‐2, noise would fall below the LACC threshold, with a resulting noise level of 57 dBA. LACC Section 12.08.440 also prohibits construction between the hour of 7:00 p.m.. and 7:00 a.m.. and at any time on Sundays or holidays, given that

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐96

November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations it creates a noise disturbance across residential property line. The Project will perform construction activities outside these hours. Therefore, with respect to a violation of the noise standards and regulations established in the LACC, potentially significant noise impacts during Project construction would be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures.

City of Rolling Hills

The City of Rolling Hills Municipal Code 15.36.020 states that “There shall be no work of improvement or the operation of mechanical equipment used in connection with work of improvement within the territorial limits of the City except on Monday through Saturday of each week, commencing at the hour of seven a.m. and ending at the hour of six p.m. on each day.” The City has not adopted any quantitative noise thresholds for construction activity. Project construction activities in the area will be performed within the hours established in the code. Therefore, with respect to a violation of the noise standards and regulations established, potentially significant noise impacts during Project construction would be less than significant.

City of Rolling Hills Estates

The City of Rolling Hills Estate Municipal Code 8.32.050 states that “Any person within the city shall be permitted to operate power construction equipment or use tools for the purpose of conducting construction or repair work on buildings, structures or projects only between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday, and between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. Construction activities are not allowed at any time on Sundays and holidays. No queuing of trucks or arrival of construction materials and/or workers to a construction site shall be permitted outside the permitted construction hours and days.” The City has not adopted any quantitative noise thresholds for construction activity. The Project construction activities will be performed within the time permitted in the municipal code except the pipeline segments in three locations, which include the following: (1) along Palos Verdes Drive North between Montecillo Drive and Dapplegray Elementary School; (2) at the Rolling Hills United Methodist Church (RHUMC) property; and (3) at the intersection of Crenshaw Boulevard and Palos Verdes Drive North. First, with respect to work along Palos Verdes Drive North, in order to minimize the overall duration of construction activities and associated temporary traffic impacts for pipeline segments on Palos Verdes Drive North between Montecillo Drive and Dapplegray Elementary School, the applicant proposes expanded construction hours. Specifically, for work within this portion of the proposed alignment, the City would allow (per a variance)28 the expanded construction hours of 7 a.m. to 12 a.m. Monday through Friday and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturdays until this segment is completed. Next, given the proximity of on‐site classrooms and other noise‐sensitive uses to proposed construction activities on the RHUMC property, as well as potential traffic impacts at the intersection of Crenshaw Boulevard and Palos Verdes Drive North (where closure of the intersection would be necessary during construction activities), nighttime construction between the hours of 8 p.m. and 4 a.m. would be allowed at these locations, though this too would require issuance of a noise variance from the City.

Therefore, with respect to a violation of the noise standards and regulations established, for which issuance of a noise variance may be necessary for activities in specific areas, potentially significant noise impacts during Project construction would be less than significant.

28 Per Section 8.32.210 of the Rolling Hills Estates Municipal Code, “[a] variance shall be required for any type of construction which will violate the noise standards set forth in Sections 8.32.050, 8.32.060, or 8.32.070.”

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐97

Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017

City of Rancho Palos Verdes

The City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code 17.56.020 states that “It is unlawful to carry on construction grading or landscaping activities or to operate heavy equipment except between the hours of seven a.m. and six p.m. Monday through Friday and between nine a.m. to five p.m. on Saturday. No such activity shall be permitted on Sunday or the legal holidays listed in Section 17.96.920 (Holiday, Legal) of this code, unless a special construction permit is obtained from the director. Said special construction permit must be requested at least 48 hours before such work is to begin. Emergency work, as defined in Section 17.96.630 (Emergency Work) of this code, and typical residential activities, such as lawn mowing, gardening (without the use of weed and debris blowers), and minor home repair/maintenance, shall be exempted from these time and day restrictions. The hours of operation for weed and debris blowers are specified in Chapter 8.16 (Weed and Debris Blowers) of this code.” The City has not adopted any quantitative noise thresholds for construction activity. The Project construction activities will be performed within the time permitted in the municipal code. Therefore, with respect to a violation of the noise standards and regulations established, potentially significant noise impacts during Project construction would be less than significant.

Off‐Site Construction Activities During all phases of construction, there would be approximately 140 haul truck trips per day between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. from Monday to Friday. The temporary addition of 140 haul truck trips per day during construction activities would not contribute to an audible increase in noise levels above the existing noise levels. The Project Site is spread over seven miles and truck trips are also expected to be spread out and would not impact a certain set of receptors, as the receptors would also be spread out. Additionally, the construction is temporary in nature and would only take place for 24 months after which the Project would cease to have any significant lasting noise impact on the surrounding areas. Therefore, off‐ site construction traffic noise impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required.

Operational Noise The Project would construct new potable water pipelines and a new pump station to replace the current water distribution system serving the Palos Verdes Peninsula, which has reached its useful service life, and improve overall system reliability. The existing noise environment in the Project vicinity is dominated by traffic noise from nearby roadways, as well as nearby industrial activities. Noise generated by the Project would result primarily from the added operation of the pump station building mechanical equipment and the added off‐site traffic from a few trucks or vehicles for maintenance activities. Long‐term operation of the Project would have a minimal effect on the noise environment in proximity to the Project site.

Off‐Site Traffic Noise The Project is only expected to need for few trucks and/or passenger vehicle trips per month for maintenance of the pump station and pipelines. The small amount of vehicles is not expected to create any significant sources of noise. Therefore, Project impact due to off‐site traffic noise is less than significant.

On‐Site Operational Noise The operation of mechanical equipment typical for developments like the Project could generate noise levels which may be audible in the immediate vicinity. The main components of the facility would be a pipeline with pumps at the pump station. The pumps would run for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week and has the potential to introduce heightened noise levels. The facility would set a standard limit of equipment operation

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐98

November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations at no greater than 85 dBA at a distance of 3 feet. The equipment would be designed to operate at a maximum of 85 dBA at 3 feet, but would be housed inside of an enclosed structure. The analysis of the pump station‐ related noise is based upon reference noise levels obtained at a pump station. Pump station‐related noise levels were measured inside of the pump station and outside of the pump station at 5 feet from a louver. A noise level of 80 dBA Leq was measured inside of the pump station and noise level of 66 dBA Leq was measured at 5 feet from the louver outside of the pump station. 29 The nearest sensitive receptor to the pump station is a single family residential unit located in the unincorporated portion of Los Angeles County. The nearest single family residential unit is approximately 160 feet from the proposed pump station. Based on a noise level source strength of 66 dBA at a reference distance of 5 feet, and accounting for distance attenuation (minimum 30 dBA insertion loss), pump‐related noise would be reduced to 36 dBA at the nearest noise‐sensitive uses. The presumed ambient noise level during 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. in Los Angeles County, according to Table B‐13, is 45 dBA in residential areas. Since the pump related noise would not exceed the applicable presumed ambient noise level, impacts would be less than significant.

Operation of the pump station, would generally involve noise generated by the pumps themselves, as discussed above. However, the pump station facility would also include a backup diesel generator that would be utilized for pump station operation in the event of a power outage at the facility in order to maintain water pressure in the service area. While incidental operation of the generator would only occur in the event of a power loss, which is anticipated to occur very infrequently and only for a short duration in those instances, such operation would generate temporary noise impacts on nearby sensitive receptors. Similarly, regular testing of the generator would occur monthly throughout Project operation, and would entail operation of the generator for a duration of approximately one hour. It should be noted that all regular testing of the generator would occur during normal weekday business hours, with no testing on weekends or nighttime hours. Although operation of the generator would only occur for limited durations, for either regular testing or emergency operation, it would nonetheless result in temporary increases in noise generation in the immediate area.

Sensitive receptors in proximity to the pump station site include single‐family residences on the hillsides and bluff tops along Crenshaw Boulevard, as illustrated above in Figure B‐8. As shown in Table 1 of the Generator Noise Technical Memorandum included in Appendix G of this Initial Study, ambient day‐night average noise levels at Locations R1 through R19 vary from 58 to 67 dBA, which is primarily due to traffic noise along Crenshaw Boulevard. As summarized in Table 2 of the Generator Noise Technical Memorandum, operation of the proposed generator (Generator 1) would generate noise levels of 75 dBA at a distance of 23 feet from the source, which would result in noise levels of between 44 and 55 dBA at Locations R1 through R19. When these noise levels are added to the existing ambient noise levels, the resulting combined noise levels range from 58 to 67 dBA, or less than one dBA difference over existing conditions. The resulting noise level contours for the proposed generator are illustrated below in Figure B‐9, Generator Noise Contour Map. As shown in Figure B‐9, noise levels would not exceed the 55 dBA daytime noise standard for any of the residential properties or other sensitive receptors in the area. As such, regular testing of the generator would not have the potential to result in significant impacts with regard to conflict with noise standards. In addition, while emergency operation of the generator could potentially occur during nighttime hours or on weekends, depending on when a power loss occurs, such operation would be temporary and would nonetheless be exempt from applicable noise standards (similar to emergency vehicle sirens).

29 Noise measurements were conducted at a pump station by ESA, July 15, 2016.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐99

Beechgate Dr

Crenshaw Blvd !.

Canyon View Ln

Project Site !. Noise Source Noise Contours 45 dBA 50 dBA 55 dBA 60 dBA 65 dBA 0 200 N 70 dBA Feet Path: U:\GIS-PCR\GIS_ACTIVE\Cal_Water_Palos_Verdes\Projects\2017 Initial- Study\Fig B-9 - Generator 1 Noise ContourMap 11-16-17.mxd,- dkaneshiro 11/16/2017

SOURCE: ESRI; ESA 2017; Black & Veatch 2017 PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project

Figure B-9 Generator 1 Noise Contour Map November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations

Furthermore, as shown in Figure B‐9, noise levels at residential property lines would not exceed 50 dBA for all but a few locations (Locations R15 through R18), and those locations would not be subject to noise levels in excess of 55 dBA. As such, although emergency operation of the generator could result in temporary exceedance of the 45‐dBA nighttime noise standard for residential uses, such effects would not be substantial and would nonetheless be exempt from applicable noise regulations given the emergency conditions under which its operation would occur. Thus, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures Construction of the Project would result in potentially significant short‐term impacts to noise sensitive receptors in excess of the significant threshold for unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County. The following mitigation measure would be required to reduce construction noise levels.

NOISE‐1: The Project shall provide a temporary 12‐foot tall construction noise barriers (i.e., wood, sound blanket) between the Project construction site and sensitive receptors south of the pump station along the south boundary of the pump station, with a performance standard of achieving a 10 dBA noise level reduction. The temporary noise barriers shall be used during peak noise‐generating construction phases when the use of heavy equipment is prevalent.

NOISE‐2: Noise‐generating equipment operated at the Project Site shall be equipped with the most effective noise control devices, i.e., mufflers, lagging, and/or motor enclosures. All equipment shall be properly maintained to assure that no additional noise, due to worn or improperly maintained parts, would be generated.

Implementation of mitigation measures NOISE‐1 and NOISE‐2 would reduce construction noise levels by a minimum of 10 dBA. Based on the unmitigated maximum noise levels shown in Table B‐17, implementation of the above measures would reduce construction noise levels to 57 dBA, which would not exceed the significance threshold of 60 dBA within unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County. Therefore, the short‐ term construction noise impacts would be mitigated to less than significant.

b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would be constructed using typical construction techniques. As such, it is anticipated that the equipment to be used during construction would not expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration. Post‐construction on‐site activities would be limited to industrial uses that would not generate excessive groundborne vibration.

Vibration Principles and Descriptors Ground‐borne vibration from development is primarily generated from the operation of construction equipment and from vehicle traffic. Ground‐borne vibration propagates from the source through the ground to adjacent buildings by surface waves. Vibration energy dissipates as it travels through the ground, causing the vibration amplitude to decrease with distance away from the source. Vibration in buildings is typically perceived as rattling of windows, shaking of loose items, or the motion of building surfaces. The vibration of building surfaces also can be radiated as sound and heard as a low‐frequency rumbling noise, known as ground‐borne noise. Vibration levels for potential structural damage is described in terms of the PPV measured in inches per second (in/sec).

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐101

Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017

Ground‐borne vibration is generally limited to areas within a few hundred feet of certain types of industrial operations and construction/demolition activities such as pile driving. Road vehicles rarely create enough ground‐borne vibration amplitude to be perceptible to humans unless the receiver is in immediate proximity to the source or the road surface is poorly maintained and has potholes or bumps. If traffic, typically heavy trucks, does induce perceptible building vibration, it is most likely an effect of low‐frequency airborne noise or ground characteristics.

Building structural components also can be excited by high levels of low‐frequency airborne noise (typically less than 100 Hz). The many structural components of a building, excited by low‐frequency noise, can be coupled together to create complex vibrating systems. The low‐frequency vibration of the structural components can cause smaller items such as ornaments, pictures, and shelves to rattle, which can cause annoyance to building occupants.

Human sensitivity to vibration varies by frequency and by receiver. Generally people are more sensitive to low‐frequency vibration. Human annoyance also is related to the number and duration of events; the more events or the greater the duration, the more annoying it becomes. Ground‐borne vibration related to human annoyance is generally related to root mean square (rms) velocity levels, and expressed as velocity in decibels (VdB).

Regulatory Framework The Cities of Rolling Hills Estate, Rolling Hills, and Palos Verdes, and Los Angeles County do not address vibration in either their respective municipal code or general plan noise elements. With respect to ground‐ borne vibration from construction activities, Caltrans has adopted guidelines/recommendations to limit ground‐borne vibration based on the age and/or condition of the structures that are located in close proximity to construction activity. With respect to residential and commercial structures, Caltrans’ technical publication, titled Transportation‐ and Construction‐Induced Vibration Guidance Manual, provides a vibration damage potential threshold criteria of 0.5 in/sec PPV for historic and older buildings, 1.0 inch‐per‐ second PPV for newer residential structures, and 2.0 in/sec PPV for modern industrial/commercial buildings. In addition, the guidance also sets 0.035 in/sec PPV as the threshold for “distinctly perceptible” human response to steady state vibration.30

According to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), ground vibrations from construction activities very rarely reach the level that can damage structures. A possible exception is the case of old, fragile buildings of historical significance where special care must be taken to avoid damage. The construction activities that typically generate the most severe vibrations are blasting and impact pile driving, which would not be utilized for the Project. The Project would utilize construction equipment such as use of bulldozers and excavators, which would generate ground‐borne vibration during excavation and foundation activities. Based on the vibration data by the FTA, typical vibration velocities from the operation of a large bulldozer would be approximately 0.089 in/sec PPV at 25 feet from the source of activity, 0.031in/sec PPV at 50 feet distance, and 0.011 in/sec PPV at 100 feet distance.

30 State of California, Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2004. Transportation‐ and Construction‐Induced Vibration Guidance Manual. June 2004. Available: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/vibrationmanFINAL.pdf. Accessed April 2017.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐102

November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations

Construction Vibration The nearest off‐site residential building is located 25 feet away from a portion of the pipeline. Note that since construction equipment would be in any one location at a short term, temporary basis, the sensitive receptor would be exposed to vibration from farther than 25 feet during the majority of the construction period. Additionally, vibration attenuates quickly and it is safe to assume that the effects would completely dissipate by the time it reached any sensitive receptor. As discussed above, typical vibration velocities from a large bulldozer would be approximately 0.089 in/sec PPV at 25 feet; therefore, construction equipment would not generate vibration levels in excess of the 0.5 in/sec PPV structural damage threshold. Construction vibration impacts would be less than significant and mitigation measures would not be required.

Operational Vibration Once construction activities have been completed, there would be no substantial sources of vibration activities from the Project site. The Project’s operations would include industrial‐grade stationary mechanical and electrical equipment, such as pumps, compressor units, and exhaust fans, which would produce limited levels of vibration, but not strong enough to cause vibration impacts to sensitive receptors. Therefore, vibration impacts during Project operation would be less than significant.

c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impact. The existing noise environment in the Project area is dominated by traffic noise from nearby roadways, as well as industrial activities. Long‐term operation of the Project would not have a significant effect on the community noise environment in proximity to the Project site. Noise sources that would have potential noise impacts include: off‐site vehicle traffic and facility equipment. Motor vehicle travel on local roadways attributable to the Project, as discussed in Response XII.a, would have a less than significant impact on community noise levels. Noise levels associated with on‐site operations (e.g., mechanical equipment) are also considered less than significant as discussed in Response XII.a. As such, noise impacts would be less than significant.

d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The Project would result in a temporary increase in ambient noise near the Project site during the construction period. It is estimated that ambient noise levels in residential areas during the daytime ranges from 55‐65 dBA Leq. Construction noise impacts related to exceeding standards are discussed in Response XII.a. With construction generating potential short‐ term noise levels of up to 84 dBA at 50 feet, the Project would result in an estimated maximum increase of up to 14 dBA in ambient noise levels periodically. This level of potential noise increase would only occur during more active phases of construction, such as during roadway demolition and trenching activities. This estimated maximum noise increase would be considered audible to the human ear and would generally be described as more than a doubling of sound, given that a 10 dBA increase is qualitatively described as a doubling in sound level. However, this increase would only occur for a temporary duration at a sensitive receptor location as construction of the replacement pipelines moves from one location to the next along the designated pipeline route. As discussed in Attachment A, Project Description, each work crew is anticipated to construct approximately 100 feet of pipeline per work day, and thus construction activities would only occur in any one particular location for a period of a few days, such that construction‐related noise would be

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐103

Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017 experienced by nearby sensitive for only a relatively short duration. Although noise impacts are not expected due to the very limited duration of construction activities at any one location, this impact is conservatively considered to be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures Construction of the Project could result in a potentially substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels to noise sensitive receptors. The following mitigation measures would be required to reduce construction noise levels:

NOISE‐3: During pipeline construction activities adjacent to noise‐sensitive receptors (e.g., residences), where physically feasible, the Project shall provide a temporary and mobile 10‐foot tall construction noise barrier between the Project construction site and the nearest noise‐ sensitive receptors (e.g., residences) with a performance standard of achieving a 10 dBA noise level reduction. The temporary and mobile noise barrier shall be used during peak noise‐ generating construction phases when the use of heavy equipment is prevalent. The barriers should be mobile to allow for repositioning in order to block the noise at sensitive receptors as pipeline construction activities move from one location to the next along the designated pipeline route. A noise barrier is not required if it would pose a safety risk or unreasonably prevent access to the construction area as deemed by the on‐site construction manager such as in areas that have limited equipment maneuvering space or access.

NOISE‐4: Residents of properties along the proposed alignment(s) shall be offered relocation for the duration of nearby active construction activities which may create ambient noise levels at their property in excess of 55 dBA, Leq. between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. and 45 dBA, Leq. between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., until construction activities have moved to a sufficient distance from each affected property such that daytime and nighttime noise levels return to acceptable levels. Based on the analyses presented in this Initial Study, this shall apply to residences located within approximately 500 feet of construction activities; these distances may be revised by the City of Rolling Hills Estates upon completion of additional monitoring and analysis, which could be performed under the direction of an independent acoustician during the implementation of the Project.

Implementation of mitigation measure NOISE‐3 would reduce construction noise levels by a minimum of 10 dBA to the extent technically possible, while mitigation measure NOISE‐4 would temporarily relocate sensitive receptors away from construction activities where implementation of mitigation measure NOISE‐3 is not physically possible. Therefore, the short‐term construction noise impacts would be mitigated to less than significant.

e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The Project site is not located within an airport land use plan area or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. Therefore, construction or operation of the Project would not expose people to excessive airport related noise levels. No impact would occur in this regard.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐104

November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations

f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, heliport or helistop, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The Project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, or heliport or helistop. Therefore, the Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels from such uses. No impact would occur in this regard.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐105

Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017

XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project:

a. Induce substantial population growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact. Construction and operation of the Project would serve to increase the reliability of the existing water supply for Cal Water’s Palos Verdes service area, and would not increase the available supply of potable water in the region. As such, the Project would not induce population growth in the area, either directly or indirectly. No growth‐inducing impacts are anticipated to result from the Project, as the Project would accommodate existing Cal Water customers. As such, no impact would occur in this regard.

b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The construction and operation of the Project would occur within public street rights‐of‐way, public utility easements, bridle trails, a public elementary school property, part of the Los Angeles County SCBG property, and other public and private property. No housing is to be removed as part of the Project. Therefore, construction and operation of the Project would not have any impacts on the number or availability of existing housing in the area and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact would occur in this regard.

c. Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The Project would involve the construction and operation of two new pipelines and a pump station to provide domestic water service to existing uses within the service area, and would not involve any activities that would result in the displacement of substantial numbers of people. Therefore, the Project would have no potential to displace people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact would occur in this regard.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐106

November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations

XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a. Fire protection. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The Project would involve the construction and operation of two new pipelines and a pump station to provide domestic water service to existing uses within the service area. Operation of the Project would occur passively and would not require additional fire protection. As such, no operational impacts would occur in this regard.

Construction activities associated with the Project may temporarily increase the demand for fire protection. However, in compliance with the requirements of the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements, all construction managers and personnel would be trained in fire prevention and emergency response. Further, fire suppression equipment specific to construction would be maintained along the Project alignment. As applicable, construction activities would be required to comply with the 2013 CBC, the 2013 California Fire Code (CFD), and the appropriate fire codes of the City of Rolling Hills Estates, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and the County of Los Angeles, as applicable.

Construction activities associated with the Project may involve temporary closure of lane segments or portions of intersections along the 7‐mile alignment of the Project site. Construction‐related traffic could result in increased travel time due to flagging or stopping of traffic to accommodate soil hauling and delivery trucks entering and existing the Project site during construction. As such, construction activities could increase response times for emergency vehicles to local business and/or residences within the Project vicinity, due to travel time delays to through traffic. However, the impacts of such construction activity would be temporary and on an intermittent basis. Further, a detailed Construction Traffic Management Plan would be prepared as part of the final design in order to minimize disruptions to through traffic flow, maintain emergency vehicle access along the Project alignment and neighboring land uses, and schedule worker and construction equipment delivery to avoid peak traffic hours (Mitigation Measure PS‐1). As part of the Plan, the times of day and locations of all temporary lane closures would be coordinated so that they do not occur during peak periods of traffic congestion, to the extent feasible. Such events would be coordinated with neighboring construction projects, as necessary. In addition, Cal Water will notify all affected property owners of the access restrictions and traffic detours that will occur during construction. Cal Water will also maintain contact with emergency service providers to route their vehicles around and through the work zones. The Construction Traffic Management Plan would be prepared for review and approval by the City of Rolling Hills Estates, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and the County of Los Angeles, as applicable. The Plan would follow the standards outlined in the Caltrans Traffic Manual as well as City of Rolling Hills Estates, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and the County of Los Angeles Guidelines. These practices, as well as techniques typically employed by emergency vehicles to clear or circumvent traffic (i.e., lights and sirens), are expected to limit the potential for significant delays in emergency response times during Project construction. Therefore, impacts regarding emergency response times and emergency access during construction would be less than significant with the incorporation of the Project’s Construction Traffic Management Plan (Mitigation Measure PS‐1).

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐107

Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017

Overall, with compliance to applicable fire department requirements of the City of Rolling Hills Estates, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and the County of Los Angeles, and implementation of the prescribed mitigation measure, and due to the temporary nature of necessary construction activities, construction impacts on fire protection would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure

PS‐1: Construction Traffic Management Plan – A Construction Traffic Management Plan shall be developed by the Project contractor in consultation with the Project’s traffic and/or civil engineer and approved by the Building Official, Engineer, and/or Planning Director of the City of Rolling Hills Estates, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and the County of Los Angeles, as applicable, prior to issuance of any Project demolition, grading or excavation permit. The Final Plan shall also be reviewed and approved by the respective Fire and Police Departments. The Building Official, Engineer and/or Planning Director, of the City of Rolling Hills Estates, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and the County of Los Angeles, as applicable, reserve the right to reject any engineer at any time and to require that the Plan be prepared by a different engineer. b. Police protection. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The Project would involve the construction and operation of two new pipelines and a pump station to provide domestic water service to existing uses within the service area. Operation of the Project would occur passively and would not require additional police protection. As such, no operational impacts would occur in this regard.

During construction, equipment would be temporarily stored within the two equipment laydown areas, which could result in theft, graffiti, and vandalism. However, as the Project site consists of various public street rights‐of‐way, utility easements, bridle trails, and other public and private property along an approximately 7‐mile alignment on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, it is mostly located in an area with high vehicular activity from Palos Verdes Drive North, Rolling Hills Road, Crenshaw Boulevard, Silver Spur Road, and Crest Road. As discussed above, temporary lane closures may be required. However, these closures would be temporary in nature and in the event of partial lane closures, both directions of travel on area roadways and access along the Project alignment would be maintained. All temporary lane closures would be coordinated so that they do not occur during peak periods of traffic congestion, to the extent feasible. Such events would be coordinated with neighboring construction projects, as necessary. In addition, Cal Water will notify all affected property owners of the access restrictions and traffic detours that will occur during construction. Cal Water will also maintain contact with emergency service providers to route their vehicles around and through the work zones. Emergency vehicle drivers have a variety of options for avoiding traffic, such as using their sirens to clear a path of travel or driving in the lanes of opposing traffic. Further, as discussed above, a Construction Traffic Management Plan for the Project would be prepared in order to minimize disruptions to through traffic flow, maintain emergency vehicle access along the Project alignment and neighboring land uses, and schedule worker and construction equipment delivery to avoid peak traffic hours (Mitigation Measure PS‐1). Given the visibility of the Project alignment from adjacent roadways and surrounding properties, existing police presence in Project areas, and maintained emergency access, the Project is not expected to increase demand on existing police services to a meaningful extent. Therefore, with the incorporation of the Project’s Construction Traffic Management Plan (Mitigation

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐108

November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations

Measure PS‐1), the Project would have a less than significant temporary impact on police protection during the construction phases.

Mitigation Measure

Refer to Mitigation Measure PS‐1. No additional mitigation measures are necessary. c. Schools. Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would involve the construction and operation of two new pipelines and a pump station to provide domestic water service to existing uses within the service area. Project implementation would not induce population growth in the area, either directly or indirectly. Therefore, the Project would not generate school‐aged children. As such, no operational impacts would occur in this regard.

The pipeline component of the Project would traverse the Dapplegray Elementary School property, where it turns north along an existing paved access road through the campus and continuing to the Rolling Hills Little League ball fields. Temporary construction activities on the school campus could have potential adverse impacts to school operations or activities if construction were to occur while school was in session. However, per an agreement with the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District, construction on the property would only be allowed during summer months when school is not in session. As such, the construction activities associated with this portion of the alignment would not have any adverse effects on school services or facilities, as the school property would be returned to pre‐Project conditions upon completion of construction. Additionally, a portion of the pipeline alignment would traverse the RHUMC property, which includes a preschool and is also in proximity to the Rolling Hills Country Day School, which is a private elementary and middle school located adjacent to and south of the RHUMC property. Given the sensitivity of the preschool and Country Day School to noise effects, the City would require that no construction activities occur along this portion of the alignment between the hours of 4 a.m. and 8 p.m. in order to preclude adverse effects on school activities and operations (see further discussion above under Response XII.a). Impacts to schools, therefore, would be less than significant and no mitigation is necessary. d. Parks. Less Than Significant Impact. The construction and operation of the Project would not generate additional population that would increase demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. As such, no operational impacts would occur in this regard.

As discussed above, the pipeline component of the Project would include new potable water pipelines, the alignment for which would be located in proximity to the Rolling Hills Little League ball fields, but would not physically impact the baseball diamonds or other improvements, and construction in proximity to these facilities would only occur for a matter of a few days. The pipeline alignment would then continue west along the horse/bridle trail, turn north on Rolling Hills Road for a short length, and then turn west through the SCBG and onto Crenshaw Boulevard. Temporary closure of some portions of the horse/bridle trail may be required. However, these closures would be temporary in nature, and alternate pedestrian and equestrian access would be provided to the extent feasible. As such, given the temporary and localized nature of construction activities affecting recreational facilities and trails in the immediate area, impacts to such facilities and related activities would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐109

Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017 e. Other public facilities. No Impact. No other public facilities are anticipated to have the potential to be subject to adverse physical impacts associated with Project implementation. No impact would occur in this regard.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐110

November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations

XV. RECREATION a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed under Response XIV.d., the construction and operation of the Project would not generate additional population that would increase demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. As such, no operational impacts would occur in this regard.

As discussed above, the construction of the pipelines near the Rolling Hills Little League ball fields and through the bridle trail to the west of the ball fields could result in temporary indirect effects (baseball activities) and/or trail closures. Any impacts to recreational activities associated with the horse/bridle trail along the Project alignment would be temporary in nature and would be limited to the immediate area in which construction activities are occurring, and alternate access would be provided. As such, due to the limited scale and temporary nature of construction activities, a less than significant impact would occur in regards to recreational facilities and activities during Project construction. b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. The Project would involve the construction and operation of two new pipelines and a pump station to provide domestic water service to existing uses within the service area. Construction and operation of the Project would not include recreational facilities or require construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. No impacts are expected and no mitigation is required.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐111

Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017

XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Would the project: a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non‐motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. For a temporary period during construction, there would be minor alterations to the current traffic patterns. The pipeline would be installed in sections no longer than 500 feet (approximately the length of a short street block), within an approximately 1,200‐ foot work zone (up to a maximum of about 2,000 feet). After the installation of pipe within the work zone, the open trench in the street would be backfilled, paved, and returned to normal operation.

Prior to construction, and as required by the Construction Traffic Management Plan (per Mitigation Measure PS‐1 above), Cal Water would submit traffic control plans for approval to the City of Rolling Hills Estates, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and the County of Los Angeles, as applicable, to ensure that traffic impacts, including impacts to public transportation routes, are kept to a minimum. Cal Water would comply with any requirements specified by those agencies regarding construction activities within each jurisdiction. In order to be consistent with requirements specified by each affected agency, as well as ensure job site safety, Cal Water would implement the following construction practices, as necessary and appropriate:

. Construction areas would be separated by concrete barriers. . During construction, temporary traffic control devices, signs, and flagmen would be utilized to minimize traffic congestion. At nighttime, all barricades would be provided with flashing/steady burn warnings, and all delineators would have white reflective bands. All barricading and traffic controls would conform to the latest editions of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Greenbook) and the Work Area Traffic Control Handbook (WATCH). . Safe and adequate pedestrian and vehicular access would be provided to police and fire stations, schools, fire hydrants, hospitals (if any), commercial buildings, and residential uses. The access to these facilities would be continuous and unobstructed. . The construction of the pipeline would be coordinated with the Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority (PVPTA) to temporarily relocate bus stops if needed. . Temporary traffic lanes would have a minimum width of 10 feet to provide safe access to cars, buses, trucks, and trailers. . Sections of the proposed pipeline would be installed using the open‐trench method, along existing street rights‐of‐way in most instances. The open trenches should be covered with plates to allow traffic flow during peak periods and times when construction work is not taking place, if open trench construction is blocking traffic lanes.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐112

November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations

. Construction would generally be carried out between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m., Mondays to Fridays and potentially from 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. on Saturdays. Any work carried out outside of these hours would require issuance of a noise variance by the City. . Staging equipment would occur off‐street at two identified lay down/staging areas (refer to Figure A‐ 4 in Attachment A of this Initial Study for the location of the two areas). With staging areas off‐street, the equipment would not cause additional disruption to traffic flow during the construction period. . Excavations would be fenced to provide protection against anyone falling into the excavation. . Cal Water would assign a full‐time construction inspector to the Project to monitor the construction activities and to ensure that all traffic requirements specified by the City of Rolling Hills Estates, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and the County of Los Angeles are implemented. Given implementation of the Construction Traffic Management Plan, as required by Mitigation Measure PS‐1 above, no significant adverse environmental impacts associated with traffic load or congestion are anticipated to result from construction and operation of the Project.

Mitigation Measure

Refer to Mitigation Measure PS‐1. No additional mitigation measures are necessary. b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less Than Significant Impact. The Congestion Management Program (CMP) was created statewide as a result of Proposition 111 and has been implemented locally by Metro. The CMP for Los Angeles County requires that the traffic impact of individual development projects of potentially regional significance be analyzed if an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is being prepared. Although an EIR is not being prepared for the Project, an analysis of regional impacts as outlined in the CMP was conducted.

A specific system of arterial roadways plus all freeways comprise the CMP system. Per CMP Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines, a traffic impact analysis is to be conducted:

. At CMP arterial monitoring intersections, including freeway on‐ or off‐ramps, where the Project would add 50 or more trips during either the morning or evening weekday peak hours. . At CMP mainline freeway monitoring locations, where the project would add 150 or more trips in either direction during the either the morning or evening weekday peak hours.

The closest CMP arterial monitoring intersections to the Project Site include various major intersections along State Route 1 (Pacific Coast Highway) and State Route 213 (S. Western Avenue), which include the following:

 Pacific Coast Highway at S. Western Avenue

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐113

Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017

 Pacific Coast Highway at Crenshaw Boulevard

 Pacific Coast Highway at State Route 107 (Hawthorne Boulevard)

 S. Western Avenue at 9th Street

 S. Western Avenue at Toscanini Drive

Of these most proximate CMP intersections, the closest to the Project alignment include Pacific Coast Highway at Crenshaw Boulevard (1.1 miles northeast of the Project at the closest point) and S. Western Avenue at Toscanini Drive (1.1 miles south‐southeast of the Project at the closest point). The closest CMP mainline freeway segment to the Project Site is Interstate 110 (Harbor Freeway), located approximately 2.3 miles east of the Project Site at the closest point.

The Project is not expected to add more than 50 a.m. or p.m. weekday peak hour trips at any one CMP intersection or more than 150 a.m. or p.m. weekday peak hour trips at any one mainline freeway segment, based on a range of between 54 and 82 total workers in a typical peak construction work day driving alone to the Project site, with a maximum of up to 100 workers driving to and from various portions of the Project area during major phases of construction activity. Given this worst‐case condition (i.e., every worker drives individually every day and does not carpool or use transit), up to 100 daily two‐way trips could be generated by the construction crews, though only for the temporary construction period. While peak construction activities could require up to 100 vehicle trips traveling to and from the Project area on any given day, again conservatively assuming that each worker drives his or her own vehicle to and from the area, such trips would be spread across multiple work crews (i.e., two pipeline crews, pump station crew, staging area/concrete crew, two traffic control crews, appurtenance crew, truck drivers, welding crew, and construction management/inspection crew), working in different locations and at different times of day such that no one CMP intersection or freeway segment would be measurably adversely affected by construction‐ related trips. Furthermore, in addition to the fact that construction‐related worker trips would be spread over a relatively large geography in different locations along the Project alignment and staging areas, and each vehicle would travel to the Project area from different points of origin in the region and along different routes, the majority of these trips would occur before the a.m. peak hour (defined in the CMP as 7:30 to 8:30 a.m.) or after the p.m. peak hour (defined at 4:30 to 5:30 p.m.). It should also be noted that the above discussion reflects the worst‐case traffic generation for the height of peak construction activity, but in reality the traffic generation during the majority of construction would be at the lower range of worker vehicles (i.e., 54 worker vehicles) and many construction workers may elect to carpool with others to and from the work areas. Therefore, although peak construction activities could result in up to 100 worker vehicles traveling to and from the Project area for temporary periods during Project implementation, such vehicle trips would not result in significant adverse impacts to CMP facilities in the Project area.

The pipeline, once constructed, would operate passively underground, and the pump station would require only periodic maintenance by Cal Water staff; as such, no measurable traffic impacts would occur as a result of Project operation. Additionally, no CMP arterial monitoring intersections are located along the pipeline alignment or in the immediate vicinity.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐114

November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations

Construction activities would not add enough peak‐hour trips to the existing street system to trigger further analysis as set forth by the CMP. Impacts to levels of service on the CMP network from construction of the proposed pipeline would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The Project site is not located in close proximity to any airport or private airstrip, though Zamperini Field Airport (small aircraft) is located approximately 1.2 miles from the Project site at the closest point. Although this airport is located just over a mile from the Project alignment, the Project does not involve air transportation or permanent increases in traffic levels or changes in air traffic patterns in the area. Thus, no impact would occur in this regard. d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impact. Construction and operation of the proposed pipelines would temporarily alter existing street/traffic patterns along the alignment. These temporary changes to traffic patterns and levels of service during the construction phase would be temporary and limited to the immediate area in which construction activities are occurring. All changes to traffic patterns (i.e., lane or ramp closures) would be coordinated with the City of Rolling Hills Estates, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and the County of Los Angeles, and/or PVPTA, as appropriate, to minimize impacts to motorists, public transportation patrons, and pedestrians. No design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses are proposed as part of this Project. As such, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. e. Result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would not hinder emergency access in the area except for short‐ term periods during construction. As mentioned above, all construction activities would be carried out in accordance with City of Rolling Hills Estates, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and the County of Los Angeles emergency access requirements and consistent with the approved Construction Traffic Management Plan and access would be maintained during construction. No significant emergency access impacts are expected and no mitigation is required. f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would not conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. As discussed above, construction activities would be coordinated with PVPTA and the City of Rolling Hills Estates, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and the County of Los Angeles in order to minimize impacts to alternative transportation facilities (e.g., bus stops, bike lanes). Access to public transportation and bike lanes would be maintained throughout construction to the extent feasible. As a result, less than significant impacts to alternative transportation would result from the Project and no mitigation is required.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐115

Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017

XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated (i‐ii). Although no known Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) are known to exist along the proposed alignment or at the pump station site, the Project area has a very high sensitivity for such resources given the long historical occupation of the Palos Verdes Peninsula by local tribal groups. Based on consultation with representatives of the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians, the tribe has requested format consultation as well as the opportunity to monitor Project‐ related excavation activities. Although no specific TCRs have been identified that could be potentially affected by Project activities, the potential still exists that such resources could be encountered during construction activities. However, with implementation of applicable mitigation measures, including Mitigation Measures CULT‐1 through CULT‐4 above, impacts to potential TCRs would be reduced to less than significant. The City’s correspondence with affected tribes regarding formal government‐to‐government consultation is provided in Appendix H of this Initial Study.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐116

November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations

XVIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No Impact. The City of Rolling Hills Estates is located in District #5, the South Bay Cities Sanitation District, serviced by the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, which owns and operates the wastewater collection system within the City. The nearest treatment facility is the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) located in the City of Carson. The Project would not result in changes to facilities or operations at existing wastewater treatment facilities (including the JWPCP). Consequently, no modification to a wastewater treatment facility’s current wastewater discharges would occur; hence, no impact to wastewater treatment requirements of the Los Angeles RWQCB would occur and no mitigation is required. b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. The Project would involve the construction and operation of two new pipelines and a pump station to provide domestic water service to existing uses within the service area. It is not anticipated that the construction and operation of the Project would generate wastewater, and would therefore not require the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. c. Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact. Stormwater drainage facilities are provided along the proposed alignment and surrounding vicinity. Site drainage would be collected with new storm drains and stormwater would be conveyed to an existing Los Angeles County storm drain in Crenshaw Boulevard. Construction of the Project is not expected to increase stormwater runoff in the Project area, since the Project would be placed beneath previously developed surfaces (e.g., street rights‐of‐way, public utility easements, bridle trails, a public elementary school property, part of the Los Angeles County SCBG property, and other public and private property). Although limited dewatering may be required during construction, this activity would be temporary in nature and the amount of dewatering discharge would not exceed the capacity of the existing stormwater drainage facilities, nor require new or expanded facilities of this type. The Project, once operational, would be a closed system, and therefore would not impact stormwater drainage facilities. The construction and operation of the Project is not anticipated to require, or indirectly result in, the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. Therefore, impacts to stormwater drainage facilities would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐117

Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017 d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resource, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No Impact. The Project would involve the construction and operation of two new pipelines and a pump station to provide domestic water service to existing uses within the service area. No new or expanded entitlements would be needed during construction or operation of the Project. As such, no impact would occur in this regard. e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? No Impact. Construction and operation of the Project would not generate or require wastewater capacity. No impacts to wastewater treatment capacity are anticipated and no mitigation is required. f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? Less Than Significant Impact. Refuse disposal and recycling services to the City of Rolling Hills Estates are provided by a private entity, Waste Management, which contracts with the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (SDLAC) for disposal of refuse. The SDLAC maintains multiple refuse disposal facilities, including three landfills, five gas‐to‐energy/refuse‐to‐energy facilities, two material recovery facilities, and various recycling facilities and transfer stations.

Most of the construction activities required for the Project (aside from pump station construction) involve open trench pipeline construction methods, which involves excavation of an open trench in a linear fashion along the proposed alignment(s). Excavation and construction debris would be recycled or transported to the nearest landfill site and disposed of appropriately or to another location accepting clean fill materials for reuse. The construction contractor will work with the recycling coordinators of the City of Rolling Hills Estates, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and the County of Los Angeles, as applicable, to ensure that source reduction techniques and recycling measures are incorporated into Project construction. The amount of debris generated during Project construction is not expected to significantly impact landfill capacities. Operation of the Project would not generate any solid waste. No significant impacts to landfill capacity are anticipated and no mitigation is required. g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact. As mentioned in Response XVIII.f, above, construction debris would be recycled or disposed of in accordance with local and regional standards, and operation of the Project would not generate any solid waste. As such, no significant impacts related to compliance with solid waste statutes and regulations are expected and no mitigation is required.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐118

November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations

XIX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self‐sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The analysis conducted in this Initial Study results in a determination that the Project, either individually or cumulatively, would not have a significant effect on the local environment. Since the proposed pipeline would be placed underground under existing street rights‐of‐way and other public and private areas (almost all portions of which have been previously disturbed), and mitigation measures have been incorporated to address short‐term impacts to fish, significant wildlife, and/or plant populations, the Project would not have the potential to degrade the environment in this regard. As described above, the potential for impacts to cultural resources from construction of the Project, with implementation of the identified Project‐specific mitigation measures, was found to be low; as such, significant adverse impacts to cultural resources are not anticipated. It is hereby found that the Project involves no potential for any impacts, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resources and cultural resources, and no mitigation is required. b. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in the respective issue areas, the Project would have minor, or less than significant, impacts to some environmental resources. The implementation of the identified Project‐specific mitigation measures and compliance with applicable codes, ordinances, laws and other required regulations would reduce the magnitude of any impacts associated with construction activities to a level of less than significant. Thus, for the reasons set forth below, impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

At this level of planning, it is not possible to identify all present and probable future projects in the vicinity of the Project alignment. Currently, however, several other non‐Cal Water projects have been identified in proximity to the proposed alignment, which are either in construction or planned for construction. Please refer to Appendix I of this Initial Study for the various related projects considered in this cumulative analysis. As shown in the various materials provided in Appendix I, various projects that are approved, proposed, under construction, or reasonably foreseeable are located within the City of Rolling Hills Estates, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and the County of Los Angeles in the Project area.

Within the City of Rolling Hills Estates, six (6) related projects have been identified, including 601 and 627 Silver Spur Road/600 Deep Valley Drive (under construction), 27520 Hawthorne Boulevard (approved), 927 Deep Valley Drive (grading and building plans approved, pending Final Map Approval), Peninsula Center

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐119

Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017

(under construction), 627 Deep Valley Drive (under construction), and Rolling Hills Country Club (under construction). As noted, four of these projects are under construction currently and are anticipated to be completed prior to initiation of Project construction activities. The two remaining projects involve (1) the conversion of an existing structure for an alternate use (25720 Hawthorne Boulevard), which would not require an intensive construction effort, and (2) construction of 75 condominium units on a 3‐acre site (927 Deep Valley Drive) located just north of Crenshaw Boulevard within the Silver Spur Town & Country Center. Despite the proximity of the 927 Deep Valley Drive project to Project‐related activities along Crenshaw Boulevard, based on the limited intensity of the development at that location, and uncertainties regarding the specific timing of construction activities relative to the Project‐related construction at this location, related projects in the City of Rolling Hills Estates are not expected to result in significant cumulative effects in conjunction with the Project.

With regard to projects in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, the City’s website listed 24 projects and/or planning efforts, the vast majority of which are either policy documents with no foreseeable construction efforts associated with them (e.g., Coast Vision Plan, General Plan Update, Western Avenue Vision Plan, etc.) or are projects located near the Pacific coast at a considerable distance from the Project site such that they would not contribute notably to cumulative construction effects. Those remaining projects that could potentially contribute to additive effects in conjunction with construction of the Project include the Crestridge Condominium Project (under construction), Elkmont Canyon (single‐family residence), Highridge Condominiums Project (under construction), and the St. John Fisher Master Plan (approved). Among these four projects, two of them are under construction and are expected to be completed prior to initiation of Project‐related construction activities, while one project is a single‐family home which would involve very limited and temporary construction effects. The last project, the St. John Fisher Master Plan project, is located at the southern terminus of the pipeline alignment at the southwest corner of Crenshaw Boulevard and Crest Road. Although the specific timing of implementation of this project is not currently known, if construction activities were to overlap with those of the Project, the cumulative effects would be most substantial while pipeline construction activities are occurring at this specific location, which would only be of short duration relative to the overall construction effort. As such, while construction activities in proximity to the Project alignment’s southern terminus could potentially overlap with implementation of Master Plan improvements on the St. John Fisher property, cumulative construction effects would only occur for a limited duration and thus extended additive construction effects would not occur. Therefore, construction activities associated with projects located within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes are not expected to result in significant cumulative effects in conjunction with the Project.

Lastly, with regard to projects located within unincorporated portions of Los Angeles County in the Project area, all of the projects currently within the Palos Verdes Peninsula Zoned District (ZD) and Rolling Hills ZD consist of six (6) cellular towers and/or related infrastructure improvements to existing cellular facilities. Although two of the six projects are located along Crenshaw Boulevard in areas where Project‐related construction would occur, based on the nature and very limited intensity of the proposed improvements (which don’t involve any notable construction activities), the potential for these projects to contribute to cumulative construction effects in conjunction with the Project is considered remote. As such, related projects within the unincorporated portions of the Project area are not expected to contribute to significant cumulative impacts.

Operation of the Project would not result in cumulative effects relative to these projects, as the Project would operate passively as a closed system.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐120

November 2017 Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations

Although all current and probable future projects located near the Project cannot be ascertained based on available data, as mentioned above, it is reasonable to assume that the projects with the potential to contribute to cumulative impacts would be those projects occurring concurrent with, and in proximity to, the Project. Such projects, as may be determined at this level of planning, would be other linear utility projects being undertaken by Cal Water within, or near, the Project alignment at the time of the Project construction activities. Such projects would include other Cal Water improvement projects. The impacts of these projects, as well as those of the Project (as discussed above), would be temporary in nature, and would generally be limited to the area in which construction activities are occurring. Given that these infrastructure projects would be coordinated by Cal Water, it can be anticipated that Cal Water would initiate construction of each project in a manner such that construction activities associated with different projects would occur either at different times or at sufficient distance from one another as to avoid cumulative effects relative to air quality, noise, and traffic.

Air Quality

With regard to air quality, the SCAQMD has established incremental emissions thresholds to determine whether a project will contribute to significant impacts. Because the Project would contribute emissions at rates below SCAQMD significance thresholds, and for a temporary duration as construction occurs along the alignment, it is anticipated that the air quality impacts of the Project and other related projects would not be cumulatively considerable.

Noise and Vibration

The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative noise impacts depends on the impact being analyzed. Noise is by definition a localized phenomenon, and sound reduces significantly in magnitude as the distance from the source increases. As such, only projects expected to occur in the immediate Project area likely would contribute to cumulative noise impacts.

Construction Noise

Noise from construction of the Project and related projects would be localized, thereby potentially affecting areas immediately within 500 feet from either/both construction sites. There are no additional construction projects planned in close proximity to the Project, therefore a cumulative construction impact is not expected. Furthermore, in the event of another project, the developer would be required to implement mitigation measures to reduce significant noise impacts, related projects would also be required to comply with City and/or County noise standards and implement mitigation measures for identified significant impacts, as required under CEQA. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative construction noise impacts would not be expected to be cumulatively considerable. As such, cumulative impacts associated with construction noise would be less than significant.

Operational Noise

Cumulative noise impacts would occur primarily as a result of increased traffic on local roadways due to the Project and other projects in the Project vicinity. Cumulative traffic volumes would have to increase two‐fold over the existing traffic volumes in order to result in an increase in noise levels of 3 dBA CNEL. As discussed

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐121

Attachment B ‐ Explanation of Checklist Determinations November 2017 previously, the Project would generate a minimal increase in traffic over existing conditions, a few vehicles a month, which would not exceed the 3 dBA significance threshold. It is unlikely that cumulative traffic volumes would increase by double over the existing traffic volumes. Therefore, with respect to roadway noise, the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

The Project’s fixed mechanical equipment would be located within the interior of the building such that noise levels would be less than significant at the property line. As the Project’s composite stationary‐source and operational impacts would be less than significant, composite stationary‐source and operational noise impacts attributable to cumulative development would also be less than significant.

Vibration

Due to the rapid attenuation characteristics of ground‐borne vibration and distance of the related projects to the Project site, the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Traffic

With regard to traffic, construction activities would generate truck traffic and vehicular traffic associated with construction worker travel, as well as result in lane closures and temporary loss of parking capacity along affected streets. Impacts resulting from the Project's construction traffic would be temporary and are not expected to be significant, as discussed above. Traffic impacts of the Project, in conjunction with those of the related projects in the area occurring concurrently (if any), would be minimized by coordination with the respective jurisdictions within which the construction activity is occurring, which is required to maintain proper levels of service and the overall function of the area’s transportation network. Given that all the related projects are subject to review by each respective agency approving the construction (when traffic system components or function are affected), it is assumed that each agency would require that Cal Water and other related project developers coordinate activities to the extent practicable such that the traffic system and levels of service in any one area are maintained. In addition, the Project would be required to implement an approved Construction Traffic Management Plan irrespective of the jurisdiction in which construction activities are taking place at any given time. Review by, and coordination with, each affected agency would preclude the possibility of significant cumulative traffic impacts resulting from Project and related project construction activities. Based on the above, the Project is not anticipated to result in traffic impacts that are cumulatively considerable. c. Does the project have environmental effects which cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would have no adverse effects on human beings other than the beneficial effect of providing a more reliable water supply for existing Cal Water customers in the Palos Verdes service area. Therefore, the Project is not anticipated to have a direct or indirect substantial adverse effect on human beings and no mitigation is required.

City of Rolling Hills Estates PV Peninsula Water Reliability Project ESA B‐122

OUR COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY | ESA helps a variety of public and private sector clients plan and prepare for climate change and emerging regulations that limit GHG emissions. ESA is a registered assessor with the California Climate Action Registry, a Climate Leader, and founding reporter for the Climate Registry. ESA is also a corporate member of the U.S. Green Building Council and the Business Council on Climate Change (BC3). Internally, ESA has adopted a Sustainability Vision and Policy Statement and a plan to reduce waste and energy within our operations. This document was produced using recycled paper.