1 Chapter 5 2 Cumulative Analysis 3 5.1 Introduction 4 This chapter evaluates the potential for the proposed Project, together with other past, 5 present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the cumulative geographic scope of 6 each resource area, to make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant 7 cumulative effect. The presentation of requirements related to cumulative impact 8 analyses and a brief description of the related projects are discussed in Sections 5.1.1 and 9 5.1.2, respectively. The discussion under each environmental issue area describes the 10 potential impacts as a result of Project buildout in combination with development of 11 reasonably foreseeable projects in the geographic area, as described in Section 5.2. 12 Cumulative impacts of the proposed Project, when combined with other reasonably 13 foreseeable projects in the area, are evaluated under each resource topic in Section 5.2. A 14 discussion of cumulative impacts for each alternative is also presented for each impact, 15 following the cumulative analysis of the proposed Project. A description of each 16 alternative and analysis of potential impacts is presented in Chapter 6, Analysis of 17 Alternatives. The seven Project alternatives include: 18 Alternative 1 – Reduced Project: Water Quality Improvements 19 Alternative 2 – Reduced Project: Limited Demolition 20 Alternative 3 – Retention of Historic Buildings 21 Alternative 4 – Relocation of Historic Buildings 22 Alternative 5 – Alternate Site 23 Alternative 6 – No Project 24 Alternative 7 – No Federal Action 25 5.1.1 Requirements for Cumulative Impact Analysis 26 The state CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15130) require a reasonable analysis of the 27 significant cumulative impacts of a proposed Project. Cumulative impacts are defined by 28 CEQA as “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are 29 considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts” (CEQA 30 Guidelines, Section 15355). 31 Cumulative impacts are further described as follows: 32 (a) The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of 33 separate projects. Al Larson Boat Shop Improvement Project Draft EIR ADP# 080627-072 January 2012 5-1 SCH# 2010091041 Chapter 5 Cumulative Analysis Los Angeles Harbor Department 1 (b) The cumulative impacts from several projects are the changes in the environment, 2 which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely 3 related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Cumulative impacts 4 can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place 5 over a period of time (40 CFR 1508.7 and CEQA Guidelines, Section 15355[b]). 6 Furthermore, according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a)(1): 7 As defined in Section 15355, a “cumulative impact” consists of an impact that is 8 created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together 9 with other projects causing related impacts. An EIR should not discuss impacts 10 which do not result in part from the project evaluated in the EIR. 11 In addition, as stated in the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064(i)(5): 12 The mere existence of significant cumulative impacts caused by other projects 13 alone shall not constitute substantial evidence that the proposed project’s 14 incremental effects are cumulatively considerable. 15 Therefore, the following cumulative impact analysis focuses on whether the impacts of 16 the proposed Project and alternatives are cumulatively considerable within the context of 17 impacts caused by other past, present, or future projects. The cumulative impact scenario 18 considers other projects proposed within the area defined for each resource that would 19 have the potential to result in a significant cumulative impact. Only those project impacts 20 determined to be less than significant, less than significant with mitigation, or significant 21 and unavoidable are analyzed for cumulative impacts. 22 For this EIR, related area projects with a potential to contribute to cumulative impacts 23 were identified using one of two approaches: the “list” methodology or the “projection” 24 methodology. Most of the resource areas were evaluated using a list of closely related 25 projects that would be constructed within the spatial and temporal scope of analysis. The 26 temporal and spatial scope of analysis varies by resource area and in some case, even by 27 a resource area’s impact threshold. The cumulative regions of influence are documented 28 in Section 5.2 below. The list of related projects is provided in Table 5-1 in Section 5.1.2 29 below. 30 Air quality, noise, and traffic/circulation analyses use a projection or a combined list and 31 projection approach as described below. Cumulative analysis of air quality impacts uses 32 projections from the South Coast Air Basin 2007 AQMP and the 2008 Multiple Air 33 Toxics Exposure Study (MATES II and MATES-III) (SCAQMD, 2007 and 2008). The 34 Traffic/Circulation cumulative analysis uses future traffic growth forecasts for the area 35 from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Travel 36 Demand Forecasting Model and the Port Travel Demand Model which are described in 37 Section 3.12. The cumulative analysis of noise impacts uses a hybrid approach, as it 38 relies on both the annual regional growth rates utilized for traffic (because traffic is an 39 important contributor to noise impacts) and the list of related projects documented in 40 Section 5.1.2. 41 ADP# 080627-072 Al Larson Boat Shop Improvement Project Draft EIR SCH# 2010091041 5-2 January 2012 Los Angeles Harbor Department Chapter 5 Cumulative Analysis 1 5.1.2 Projects Considered in the Cumulative Analysis 2 5.1.2.1 Past Projects 3 This section describes past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the area that 4 affect cumulative conditions at the Port. 5 History of the Port of Los Angeles 6 The Port is located in the Port Complex at the southernmost point of Los Angeles 7 County, approximately 20 miles from downtown Los Angeles. Because of its proximity 8 to the Pacific Ocean, the Port Complex has a long history of maritime activity. 9 In 1822, under the newly independent Mexican government San Pedro became a robust 10 commercial center and an attractive home for new settlers. The Mexican government 11 granted three ranchos near the bay, Rancho San Pedro, Rancho Los Palos Verdes, and 12 Rancho Los Cerritos. On February 2, 1848, when California came under American 13 control, business at San Pedro Harbor was booming. It was evident, however, that the 14 Harbor needed to be expanded to accommodate the increasing cargo volume coming into 15 the bay for the growing population in Los Angeles. In 1906, the city annexed a 16-mile 16 strip of land on the outskirts of San Pedro and Wilmington. The Port was officially 17 founded in 1907 with the creation of the Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners. 18 Between 1911 and 1912, the first 8,500-foot section of the breakwater was completed, 19 and the Main Channel was widened to 800 feet and dredged to a depth of 30 feet to 20 accommodate the largest vessels of that era. Concurrently, Southern Pacific Railroad 21 completed its first major wharf in San Pedro, allowing railcars to efficiently load and 22 unload goods simultaneously. The Port continued to grow through the twentieth century. 23 Following World War II, the Los Angeles Harbor District launched a broad restoration 24 program. Many of the facilities in the Harbor required maintenance that had been 25 delayed during the war years. In recent years, the advent of containerization resulted in 26 dramatic changes at the Port. Because of this new mode of shipping, the Port, like major 27 new and old harbors, modernized facilities to meet the needs of the new geometry 28 required by containerization. In addition to the new (container size and shape driven) 29 configurations, larger cranes and concrete wharves (replacing timber) were required to 30 handle the dramatically increased weight of cargo containers. Other major Harbor 31 improvements included deepening the main channel to accommodate the larger container 32 vessels entering the bay, purchasing land to expand terminals, and replacing older 33 wharves that could not bear the increased weight of newer containers. 34 History of the Project Area and Site 35 The ALBS facilities have been at the present location since 1924. Most of the structures 36 presently at the site were constructed in 1938. The facilities have supported activities 37 such as boat construction, boat repair and maintenance, sales and service of marine and 38 stationary engines, and accessories. 39 In 1903, Swedish native Al Larson established a shipyard o the east side of the main San 40 Pedro Channel, on lands leased from the Banning family. Larson's small yard soon 41 became a successful enterprise, building and repairing wooden fishing vessels for local 42 fishermen. Prior to the 1910s, shipbuilding and repair operations at the Port were limited 43 by the harbor’s shallow depth. Small fishing and tugboats were built and serviced by 44 local yards, including the ALBS, established in 1903. Dredging improvements deepened 45 harbor waters, bringing larger vessels to the Port and providing the boatyards increased 46 commercial opportunities. Around 1913 or 1914, the Main Channel was modified to Al Larson Boat Shop Improvement Project Draft EIR ADP# 080627-072 January 2012 5-3 SCH# 2010091041 Chapter 5 Cumulative Analysis Los Angeles Harbor Department 1 accommodate increasing traffic, and Larson moved his shop to the Wilmington direct 2 waterfront, on Mormon Island. The ALBS continued to build and service fishing seiners, 3 transport and excursion boats, yachts, and freighters at its new location.