Los Angeles Trans-Pacific Telecommunications Cable Hub

FINAL Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Los Angeles Trans-Pacific Telecommunications Cable Hub State Clearinghouse No. 2016101050

August 2017

Bureau of Engineering Environmental Management Group

City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works

Front cover: Aerial photograph of the proposed cable landing site at Dockweiler State Beach, Los Angeles Copyright (C) 2002-2017 Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman, California Coastal Records Project, www.Californiacoastline.org

FINAL Environmental Impact Report (EIR)

Los Angeles Trans-Pacific Telecommunications Cable Hub State Clearinghouse No. 2016101050 Contact:

City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering

1149 S. Broadway, Suite 600

Los Angeles, CA 90015-2213

Attention: William Jones

[email protected]

http://eng.lacity.org/la_cable_hub

Prepared By:

Environmental Resources Management 1920 Main Street, Suite 300 Irvine, California 94104

August 2017

Bureau of Engineering Environmental Management Group

City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works

Environmental Resources Management (ERM). 2017. Final EIR for Los Angeles Trans-Pacific Telecommunications Cable Hub. State Clearinghouse No. 2016101050. July. Prepared for City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering. Los Angeles, CA.

City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering Table of Contents

Los Angeles Trans-Pacific Telecommunications Cable Hub Final EIR i August 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... i

1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2. Purpose of the EIR .................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3. Environmental Review Process ............................................................................... 1-2 1.4. Community / Public Outreach Efforts .................................................................. 1-2 1.5. Public Review of the Draft EIR ............................................................................... 1-3 1.6. Public Hearing ........................................................................................................... 1-3 1.7. Resolution of Areas of Controversy ....................................................................... 1-4 1.8. Organization of the Final EIR .................................................................................. 1-4

2.0 Response to Comments ..................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2. Comment Letters ....................................................................................................... 2-2

State Agencies ................................................................................................ 2-2 2.2.1. Local Agencies ............................................................................................... 2-4 2.2.2.

2.3. Public Hearing Comments ..................................................................................... 2-11 2.4. Comment Responses .............................................................................................. 2-50

3.0 Clarifications and Modifications ..................................................................................... 3-1 Section 2.0, Project Description .......................................................................................... 3-2 Section 3.3, Air Quality ....................................................................................................... 3-4 Section 3.5, Marine Biological Resources ......................................................................... 3-5 Section 3.9, Hazards and Public Safety........................................................................... 3-10 Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................. 3-18 Section 3.11, Land Use and Recreation ........................................................................... 3-19 Section 7.0, References ...................................................................................................... 3-21

Section 3.4, Terrestrial Biological Resources ....................................................... 3-21 Section 3.5, Marine Biological Resources ............................................................. 3-21 Section 3.6, Cultural Resources ............................................................................. 3-22 Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gases .............................................................................. 3-22 Section 3.9, Hazards ................................................................................................ 3-22 Section 3.10, Hydrology ......................................................................................... 3-23 Section 3.11, Land Use and Recreation ................................................................ 3-23 Section 4.0, Alternatives and Cumulative Impacts Analyses ........................... 3-24

ATTACHMENTS

A: Notice of Availability B: Notice of Availability Distribution List and Newspaper Notice C: Public Hearing Transcript and Sign-in Sheet D: Draft EIR

City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering Table of Contents

Los Angeles Trans-Pacific Telecommunications Cable Hub Final EIR ii August 2017

TABLES

Table 2-2: Responses to Written and Phone Comments .................................................................. 2-50 Table 2-3: Comments from the Public Hearing, June 6, 2017 .......................................................... 2-55 Table 2-7: Project Approvals .................................................................................................................. 3-3 Table 3.9-4: 2015 Sediment Grab Sample Results in the Vicinity of the Proposed Cable Routes ............................................................................................................. 3-13 FIGURES

Figure 3.9-5: Hyperion Plant Sampling Locations along Proposed Cable Route ........................ 3-12

City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering Acronyms and Abbreviations

Los Angeles Trans-Pacific Telecommunications Cable Hub Final EIR iii August 2017

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AAG: Asia America Gateway AMS: Applied Marine Sciences BLM: Bureau of Land Management CARB: California Air Resources Board CalTrans: California Department of

Transportation CCC: California Coastal Commission CDFW: California Department of Fish and

Wildlife CEQA: California Environmental Quality Act City: City of Los Angeles CPAD: California Protected Areas Data CPT: Cone Penetration Test DDT: Department of Toxic Substances Control EIR: Environmental Impact Report EPA: Environmental Protection Agency ft: feet HDD: horizontal directional drilling kg: kilogram km: kilometer LACDRP: Los Angeles County Department of

Regional Planning LAWA: Los Angeles World Airways LAX: Los Angeles International Airport m: meter mg: milligram MHW: mean high water MWMCP: Marine Wildlife Monitoring and

Contingency Plan N/A: not applicable NAHC: Native American Heritage Commission nmi: nautical mile NMFS: National Marine Fisheries Service NOA: Notice of Availability NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration NOP: Notice of Preparation NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System NOx: nitrous oxides PAH: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

PCB: polychlorinated biphenyls PLCN: Pacific Light Cable Network Project: Los Angeles Trans-Pacific

Telecommunications Cable Hub Project ROV: Remotely Operated Vehicle RWQCB: Regional Water Quality Control Board SBC/FLC: South Bay Cable/Fisheries Liaison

Committee SCAQMD: South Coast Air Quality

Management District SWRCB: State Water Resources Control Board TBT: tributyltin TE SubCom: TE Subsea Communications LLC U.S.: United States USACE: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USGS: United States Geological Survey

City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering Acronyms and Abbreviations

Los Angeles Trans-Pacific Telecommunications Cable Hub Final EIR iv August 2017

-Page Intentionally Left Blank-

City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering 1.0 Introduction

Los Angeles Trans-Pacific Telecommunications Cable Hub Final EIR 1-1 August 2017

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1. Introduction

This Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared by the City of Los Angeles (City) for development of the Los Angeles Trans-Pacific Telecommunications Cable Hub (Project). The EIR was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the Guidelines for the Implementation of the State CEQA Guidelines published by the Resources Agency of the State of California (California Code of Regulations Sections 15000 et seq.).

In accordance with CEQA, the Draft EIR and this Final EIR, together, compose the Lead Agency’s environmental analysis of the Project. Numerous references are made throughout the Final EIR to the Draft EIR and the Draft EIR appendices. These documents were circulated previously and are not being reproduced. Copies are available for inspection at the Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering. The Draft EIR and supporting appendices together with this Final EIR (State Clearinghouse Number 2016101050) are the CEQA documentation for the Project.

1.2. Purpose of the EIR

The Draft EIR was previously circulated to the public and agencies for review and comment. That document is intended to inform the public and agencies of potential significant environmental effects associated with the Project. It also evaluates a range of reasonable alternatives and proposed mitigation measures to reduce significant effects. The Final EIR reports all comments raised during the public comment period and public hearing for the Draft EIR, and provides responses to those comments (Section 2.0). The Final EIR also provides a summary of all clarifications and modifications made to the Draft EIR in response to comments (Section 3.0). A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) that incorporates all proposed mitigation measures will be prepared and adopted by the City pursuant to Section 15097 of the State CEQA Guidelines.

Sections 15121(a) and 15362 of the State CEQA Guidelines define an EIR as an informational document that informs public agency decision makers and the public of the significant environmental effects of a project, identifies possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describes reasonable alternatives to a project. The proposed Project requires approval of certain discretionary actions by the City (main action) and other governmental agencies, and is therefore subject to environmental review requirements under CEQA. For the purposes of complying with CEQA, the City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering, is identified as the Lead Agency for the proposed Project. Development of the Project is proposed by the Project Applicant, TE Subsea Communications LLC (TE SubCom or the Applicant), a global supplier of subsea communications systems. Refer to the Draft EIR (Section 3.0, Environmental Setting and Impact Analysis) for the main components of the environmental review developed by the Lead Agency.



1.3. Environmental Review Process

An EIR is prepared in two key stages. First, a Draft EIR is prepared and distributed for public and agency review. Second, all comments received on the Draft EIR, responses to those comments, as well as any additional relevant project information are prepared and compiled into a Final EIR. Both of these documents along with any related technical appendices represent the complete record of the EIR.

An EIR is used by the recommending bodies and the final decision makers to weigh the benefits of a project against the environmental impacts.

The Draft EIR for this Project was publicly circulated for 45 days, followed by a public hearing held on June 6, 2017. Following the close of the public review period, the City received four individual comment letters from agencies, interested parties, and the public. This Final EIR responds to these written comments and comments received during the public hearing; it then provides edits to the Draft EIR.

This Final EIR is being distributed to provide the basis for decision making by the CEQA Lead Agency. Certification of the EIR must precede Project approval. Project approval requires that the City review and consider the EIR; adopt Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (provided under separate cover) on the significant environmental effects of the Project, as well as the feasibility of mitigation measures and alternatives; approve a specific alternative analyzed in the EIR; and adopt an MMRP. The MMRP, which incorporates all proposed mitigation measures, is provided under separate cover.

1.4. Community / Public Outreach Efforts

The City published the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this EIR and an Initial Study for the Project on October 13, 2016. At that time, the NOP was also distributed to responsible state agencies through the State Clearinghouse and mailed to owners of properties within 500 feet of the proposed Project, as well as to interested parties identified by the Lead Agency. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted on October 12, 2016, with a request for information regarding sites, resources, or locations of cultural importance to the local Native American community. In addition, individual notices were sent to the five Native American individuals and groups identified as contacts by the NAHC, pursuant to CEQA updates compliant with Assembly Bill (AB)-52, in effect as of July 1, 2016.

The NOP, included in Draft EIR Appendix A, provided formal notice of the opportunity to comment in writing and/or person at the public scoping meeting, which was held on October 25, 2016, at the Westchester Community Room in Los Angeles. There were no attendees at the meeting. The NOP also referenced the location of electronic and physical copies of the Initial Study.

The CEQA public scoping period started on October 13, 2016, ending on November 14, 2016. There were no comments received from residents or property owners within 500 feet of the Project or otherwise. Formal comments were received from two reviewing agencies, California Coastal Commission (CCC) and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and



representatives from two NAHC tribes. Public and agency comments from the scoping process are provided in Draft EIR Appendix A, as well as cross-references to where those comments are addressed in the Draft EIR.

The City distributed a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIR for a 45-day public review period, which closed on July 3, 2017. The NOA was sent to all known responsible agencies, City of Los Angeles departments that could have interest or discretionary approval regarding the Project, individuals and organizations known to have interest in the Project (or type of project), as well as to all owners of properties within 500 feet of the proposed Project. An Environmental Notice was placed in the Los Angeles Times digital and print editions on May 18, 2017. In addition, the NOA, copies of the Executive Summary, and CDs of the Draft EIR were sent to the State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, for further responsible agency distribution. The NOA was also posted with the Office of the City Clerk and Los Angeles County Clerk office. Copies of the NOA and newspaper notice for the Draft EIR are included (respectively) in Attachment A and Attachment B of this Final EIR.

1.5. Public Review of the Draft EIR

The Draft EIR was circulated for review and comment by the public and other interested parties, agencies, and organizations for 45 calendar days starting May 18, 2017, and ending on July 3, 2017. The Draft EIR was made available at the following locations:

Bureau of Engineering, Environmental Management Group (EMG), 1149 S. Broadway, Suite 600, Los Angeles, CA 90015 (213) 485-5760

Westchester-Loyola Village Branch Public Library, 7114 W. Manchester Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90045, (310) 348-1082

Council District 11- Westchester District Office,7166 W. Manchester Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90045, (310) 568-8772

Playa Vista Branch Library, 6400 Playa Vista Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90094, (310) 437-6680

El Segundo Public Library, 111 W. Mariposa Ave, El Segundo, CA 90245, (310) 524-2722

Bureau of Engineering website: http://eng.lacity.org/la_cable_hub

All documents referenced in the Draft EIR were available for review (either as included in the Reference Library CD and/or provided by request as directed to at the Bureau of Engineering).

1.6. Public Hearing

On June 6, 2017, the Bureau of Engineering held a public hearing at the Westchester Community Room, 7166 W. Manchester Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90045, to give an overview of the proposed Project and solicit comments on the Draft EIR. A total of ~1,150 flyers providing information about the hearing were mailed to stakeholders immediately adjacent to the Project alignment. Seven people attended the public hearing, and six people spoke for the record. A court reporter was present to take comments. Thirty oral comments were received at the public

http://eng.lacity.org/la_cable_hub



hearing. A copy of the transcript is included as Attachment C, and applicable responses to the comments made at the hearing are included in Section 2.0 of this Final EIR.

1.7. Resolution of Areas of Controversy

State CEQA Guidelines Section 15123(b)(2) requires that an EIR contain a summary of the areas of controversy known to the Lead Agency, including issues raised by the public and governmental agencies. No contentious issues emerged during the EIR scoping process or the Draft EIR review process.

1.8. Organization of the Final EIR

The abbreviated format used for this Final EIR complies with State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15132. This Final EIR is organized as follows:

Section 1.0, Introduction: This section includes a summary of the Project description and summarizes the process and requirements for the Final EIR under CEQA.

Section 2.0, Response to Comments: This section includes a list of all agencies, organizations, and individuals who submitted written comments during the public review period for the Draft EIR. The letters and oral comments received, numbered consecutively, are reproduced in this section. In each letter, specific comments are called out and numbered in the margin. A response to each comment is provided in a table immediately following the comment letters and transcript for the public hearing.

Section 3.0, Clarifications and Modifications: This section presents any substantive revisions to the Draft EIR that were made in response to comments received during the public review period for the Draft EIR. Additions are indicated with an underline (e.g., impact), and deletions are designated with a strikethrough (e.g., impact).

Attachments: The attachments are identified as follows and are in addition to those already included in the Draft EIR.

Attachment A: Notice of Availability

Attachment B: Notice of Availability Distribution List and Newspaper Notice

Attachment C: Public Hearing Transcript and Sign-in Sheet

Attachment D: Draft EIR

City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering 2.0 Response to Comments


2.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

2.1. Introduction

All letters commenting on the Draft EIR have been reproduced and are included in this section, followed by the City’s responses to those letters. All agencies and members of the public from whom an individual letter was received during the public review period are listed below. Each issue that was raised within each comment letter has been assigned a consecutive number that corresponds to a response number. Responses to comments from all sources, including letters, emails, phone calls, and the public hearing, are provided in Table 2-2 and Table 2-3 (see Section 2.4). Table 2-1 Summary of Comments

Comment Letter Commenter Date State Agencies S1 California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Loni Adams 6/13/2017 Local Agencies L1 City of Los Angeles, Department of Recreation and Parks,

Elena Maggioni 6/12/2017

L2 City of Los Angeles, Wastewater Engineering Services Division, LA Sanitation, Ali Poosti

6/13/2017

L3 City of Los Angeles, Department of Recreation and Parks, Elena Maggioni

7/18/2017

Comments by Phone L4 City of Los Angeles, Department of Recreation and Parks,

Cid Macaraeg 6/12/2017



2.2. Comment Letters

State Agencies 2.2.1.

Letter S1: California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Loni Adams)2.2.1.1.

6/22/2017 City of Los Angeles Mail Fwd: CEQA201606300000R5 Los Angeles TransPacific Telecommunications Cable Hub

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=0c35a9e94e&jsver=nZ9otGMmGj0.en.&view=pt&as_subj=CEQA2016&as_sizeoperator=s_sl&as_sizeunit=s_smb&… 1/4

Billy Ho <[email protected]>

Fwd: CEQA201606300000R5 Los Angeles TransPacific TelecommunicationsCable Hub2 messages

Forwarded message From: Adams, Loni@Wildlife <[email protected]> Date: Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 12:05 PM Subject: RE: CEQA201606300000R5 Los Angeles TransPacific Telecommunications Cable Hub To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: "Valand, Andrew@Wildlife" <[email protected]>

Dear Mr. Jones:

I need to confirm the difference between this project and the proposed Transpacific Cable Optic Project I reviewed in 2015. Please forward my email to the consultant so she can call me to discuss the elements of this project.

Thank you,

Loni Adams

Marine Environmental Scientist

California Department of Fish and Wildlife

Marine Region

3883 Ruffin Rd.

San Diego, CA 92123

8586273985 office

8586273984 Marine FAX

[email protected]

S1-1

mailto:[email protected]




tel:(858)%20627-3985

tel:(858)%20627-3984




Local Agencies 2.2.2.

Letter L1: City of Los Angeles, Department of Recreation and Parks (Elena Maggioni) 2.2.2.1.

Letter L2: City of Los Angeles, Wastewater Engineering Services Division, LA 2.2.2.2.Sanitation (Ali Pooti)

Letter L3: City of Los Angeles, Department of Recreation and Parks (Elena Maggioni)2.2.2.3.

6/13/2017 City of Los Angeles Mail Trans pacific cable

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=9afc1c389d&view=pt&msg=15c9e90f9847cf6b&search=inbox&siml=15c9e90f9847cf6b 1/1

William Jones <[email protected]>

Trans pacific cableElena Maggioni <[email protected]> Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 4:07 PMTo: William Jones <[email protected]>

Hi William, in my opinion 3.1.1.1. lacks any detail. I've been asked which other permits this projectrequires and I really can't say. I think that :

"The impact analysis was conducted with the following general assumptions:• The laws, regulations, and policies applicable to the City in authorizing approvals for fiberoptic cable facilities would beapplied consistently to the proposed Project.• All applicable laws, regulations, and standards of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, City of Los Angeles,and City of El Segundo would be applied consistently to the proposed Project.• The Applicant will obtain all required permits and approvals from other agencies and comply with all legally applicableterms and conditions associated with those permits and approvals."

is a little vague.

Do you have any idea of which permits this project needs?

Thank you, Elena

Elena Maggioni, Ph.D.Environmental Specialist IDEPARTMENT OF RECREATION AND PARKS Phone (213)4826980email [email protected] 221 N. Figueroa St., Room 400Los Angeles, CA 90012

On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 3:04 PM, William Jones <[email protected]> wrote: [Quoted text hidden]

1

L1-1

tel:(213)%20482-6980



L2-1

7/19/2017 City of Los Angeles Mail - Fwd: Trans Pacific Telecommunication Cable Hub

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=0c35a9e94e&jsver=qNcEVBmGY9Q.en.&view=pt&msg=15d5ba0482252c31&search=inbox&siml=15d5ba0… 1/2

Billy Ho <billy .ho@lacity .org>

Fwd: Trans Pacific T elecommunication Cable Hub

William Jones <[email protected]> Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 9:13 AMTo: Billy Ho <[email protected]>

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Elena Maggioni <[email protected]> Date: Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 2:04 PM Subject: Re: Trans Pacific Telecommunication Cable Hub To: William Jones <[email protected]>

Here are RAP comments on the Transpacific Telecommunication Cable Hub.

The EIR addressed the potential impacts of the project rather thoroughly. However, RAP staff finds three issues thatshould be clarified.

1) The study lacks a section that addresses the permits that would be needed to implement the project, and the otherfederal, state and local agencies involved in the approval process, included the permitting process at the western end ofthe project.

2) Furthermore, while the analysis of the potential impact on marine biology resources discusses a number of mitigationmeasures, it is not clear to which segments of the proposed project these measures apply. Whether they apply only tostate water, or they extend to the US territorial waters or (in the case of the marine wildlife monitoring plan, to the entireextension of the project).

3) Also, the impacts of the marine construction phase on water quality is dismissed as non-significant. But the EIR doesnot support this assumption effectively. According to the proposed project, the PLCN Subsea Fiber Optic Cable would beburied 3 ft under the sea floor from about 4,511 ft. (1,375 m) out to water depths 3,937 ft (1,200 m). On page 3.10-22, thestudy states that the project could affect marine water quality due to “Disturbance, suspension, and/or redistribution ofimpacted Bay sediments during marine construction activities. Pollutants known to be in Bay sediments includepesticides, PCBs, PAHs, TBT, metals, pathogenic bacteria and viruses, total suspended solids, nutrients, trash anddebris, chlorine, oxygen demands, and oil and grease.” On page 3.10-24, the study adds that “Seafloor sedimentdisturbance could therefore degrade water quality and have adverse impacts on marine biological communities, includingbenthic (bottom dwelling) organisms or spawning habitats (see Section 3.5, Marine Biological Resources).” However,further on page 3.10-24 it states that “Sediment disturbance and redistribution from cable installation would be short-termand localized, as re-suspended sediments would settle onto the seafloor shortly after disturbance.” This statement is notbacked by any empirical evidence. Given the fact that the 3 feet deep trench would be in an highly polluted area, wouldstart relatively near to the shore close to the terminus of the 1 mile Hyperion outfall, would cross the 5 miles Hyperionoutfall area and would stretch for more than 50 miles, out to the Santa Cruz Basin, it would be appropriate to providefurther scientific reassurance that the suspended sediments would not reach the coast and interfere with the recreationalactivities at Dockweiler Beach or anywhere else on the Pacific Coast and with the marine ecology.

All the best,

Elena

Elena Maggioni, Ph.D.

L3-3

L3-1

L3-2



7/19/2017 City of Los Angeles Mail - Fwd: Trans Pacific Telecommunication Cable Hub

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=0c35a9e94e&jsver=qNcEVBmGY9Q.en.&view=pt&msg=15d5ba0482252c31&search=inbox&siml=15d5ba0… 2/2

Environmental Specialist IDEPARTMENT OF RECREATION AND PARKS Phone (213)482-6980 e-mail [email protected] N. Figueroa St., Room 400Los Angeles, CA 90012

-- William Jones, M.A., M.S., E.I.T., R.E.P.A.Environmental Management Group | Environmental Supervisor IIBureau of Engineering | Department of Public Works1149 So. Broadway, Suite 600, Los Angeles, CA 90015, MS-939Phone: (213) 485-5760 | Fax: (213) [email protected]

tel:(213)%20482-6980



tel:(213)%20482-6980


tel:(213)%20485-5760

tel:(213)%20847-0656


http://eng.lacity.org/

https://www.facebook.com/LABureauEngineering/

https://www.instagram.com/labureauengineering/



2.3. Public Hearing Comments

1

1

2

3

4 CITY OF LOS ANGELES

5 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

6 BUREAU OF ENGINEERING

7 LOS ANGELES TRANS-PACIFIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS

8 CABLE HUB

9 DRAFT EIR PUBLIC MEETING

10 JUNE 6, 2017

11

12 7166 W. MANCHESTER AVENUE

13 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90045

14

15

16

17 PRESENTED BY:

18 WILLIAM JONES, PROJECT MANAGER, ENVIRONMENTAL

19 KATHRYN WATERS, T.E. SUBCOMDENISE TOOMBS, ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

20 NIKKI PAYNE, P.E. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

21 GAIL PEEPLES, CSR. NO. 11458

22 JOB NO. 136938

23

24

25

Coalition Court Reporters | 213.471.2966 | www.ccrola.com

2

1 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

2 JUNE 6, 2017; 4:00 P.M.

3

4

5 MR. JONES: WELCOME. THIS IS THE EIR --

6 DRAFT EIR PUBLIC MEETING FOR THE TRANS-PACIFIC

7 TELECOMMUNICATIONS CABLE HUB.

8 I AM WILLIAM JONES, PROJECT MANAGER

9 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT GROUP.

10 WE HAVE KATHRYN WATERS FROM SUBCOM AND DENISE

11 TOOMBS FROM ENVIRONMENTAL, NIKKI PAYNE FROM

12 ENVIRONMENTAL. CONSULTANT.

13 THE AGENDA IS WE WILL BE COVERING THE PURPOSE

14 OF THE MEETING, AND THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PROJECT

15 SCHEDULE WILL BE DISCUSSED. AND THEN WE WILL GO TO THE

16 CEQA PROCESS AND DISCUSS THE KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

17 OF THE LEASE. AND THEN WE WILL -- SHE WILL GO WITH A

18 SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT IMPACTS, AND THEN WE WILL OPEN

19 THE FLOOR TO COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC.

20 THE PURPOSE OF THE MEETING IS TO INFORM THE

21 PUBLIC ABOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT, DISCLOSE POTENTIAL

22 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, THE PROCEDURE AND COMMENTS, AND

23 THEN TO INFORM YOU ABOUT THE CEQA PROCESS.

24 IF YOU'D LIKE TO FILL OUT A SPEAKER CARD --

25 WE HAVE THEM IN THE BACK -- GO AHEAD AND MAKE ANY


3

1 COMMENT ON THE EIR. YOU'RE WELCOME TO.

2 NOW KATHRYN WILL GO OVER THE PROJECT

3 DESCRIPTION.

4 MS. WATERS: OKAY. I WILL STAND UP HERE.

5 SO, JUST A QUICK PROJECT DESCRIPTION ON THIS.

6 THIS IS FOR THE PROPOSAL FOR THE L.A.

7 TRANS-PACIFIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS CABLE HUB PROJECT,

8 THIS SUBSEA FIBER OPTIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS CABLE SYSTEM

9 THAT WILL START HERE IN THE U.S. AND WILL GO OVER TO

10 THE ASIA PACIFIC REGION.

11 THE MAIN OBJECTIVE OF THIS IS TO ENHANCE THE

12 CAPACITY, RELIABILITY, AND DIVERSITY OF

13 TELECOMMUNICATION LINKAGES BETWEEN THE TWO AREAS. AND

14 THERE IS MULTIPLE PHASES THAT WOULD -- FOR THIS

15 PROJECT.

16 AND THE FIRST PHASE IS THE INSTALLATION OF

17 THE LANDING SITE INFRASTRUCTURE ALONG WITH THE PLCN

18 CABLE AND -- THROUGH ONE OF THE CABLES AND A SEGMENT

19 FOR AN ADDITIONAL CABLE.

20 SO, HERE IS THE KIND OF MAIN OVERVIEW MAP.

21 IT HAS THE FOUR BORE PIPES ALONG WITH THE TWO CABLE

22 ROUTES OUT IN THE SUBSEA CABLES. AND THEN IT COMES

23 INTO DOCKWEILER BEACH. AND THERE IS TWO BEACH MANHOLES

24 AND FOUR OCEAN GROUNDBEDS AT THAT LOCATION. AND THEN

25 THERE WILL BE THE TERRESTRIAL CONDUIT BACK TO THE DATA


4

1 CENTER IN EL SEGUNDO.

2 AGAIN, THIS IS JUST A OVERVIEW, MORE LARGER

3 SCALE, FOR THE MARINE CABLE ROUTES.

4 AND HERE IS THE LANDING SITE STAGING AREA AT

5 DOCKWEILER. THIS IS PROPOSED FOR DURING CONSTRUCTION.

6 AND THEN ONCE CONSTRUCTION HAS COMPLETED, THERE WILL BE

7 NO STRUCTURES ABOVE GRADE AT THE SITE. SO, EVERYTHING

8 WILL BE AT GRADE LEVEL.

9 AND THEN THIS IS JUST A QUICK SLIDE OF THE

10 TERRESTRIAL ROUTE FROM DOCKWEILER TO -- BACK TO EL

11 SEGUNDO AND THE DATA CENTER AT L.A.3 IN EQUINIX DATA

12 CENTER.

13 SO, THIS IS THE PROPOSED ROUTE THROUGH EL

14 SEGUNDO AND TO THE DATA CENTER.

15 MR. JONES: THE REVIEW PERIOD IS 45 DAYS. IT

16 OPENED UP MAY 18. IT WILL BE COMPLETED JULY 3. THEN

17 WE WOULD EXPECT THE APPROVAL OF THE EIR PROJECT IN LATE

18 SUMMER OF THIS YEAR. AND OTHER APPROVALS OF

19 AGREEMENTS, A FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WILL BE IN THE FALL.

20 AND THEY HOPE TO START CONSTRUCTION IN DECEMBER THIS

21 YEAR.

22 THE CEQA PROCESS IS -- CEQA IS REQUIRED FOR

23 ALL DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS TO INFORM THE PUBLIC AND

24 DECISION MAKERS OF THE PROJECT AND THEIR IMPACTS AND

25 THE FEASIBLE WAYS TO AVOID, REDUCE, MITIGATION OF THOSE


5

1 IMPACTS AND CONSIDER ALTERNATIVES AND DISCLOSE ANY

2 SIGNIFICANT OR UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS AND PROVIDE YOU WITH

3 AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES.

4 AND RIGHT NOW WE ARE MORE THAN HALFWAY

5 THROUGH THE PROCESS OF THE PROPOSED REVIEW OF THE DRAFT

6 EIR.

7 THE NEXT STEP IS TO PREPARATION OF THE FINAL

8 EIR IN RESPONSE TO THE COMMENTS WE RECEIVE AND FINDINGS

9 OF FACT AND STATEMENTS OF OVERIDING CONSIDERATION AND

10 MITIGATION PLAN.

11 THERE ARE 18 ISSUES ADDRESSED -- 18 ISSUES IN

12 CEQA, AND 12 OF THOSE ISSUES ARE ADDRESSED IN THE DRAFT

13 EIR. 6 WERE FOUND TO BE NOT SIGNIFICANT.

14 AND DENISE WILL GO OVER THE ENVIRONMENTAL

15 IMPACTS.

16 MS. TOOMBS: THANK YOU. THANKS, WILLIAM.

17 SO, AS WILLIAM MENTIONED, THERE WERE A FEW

18 THAT WAS SCREENED OUT EXCLUDED FROM EIR BECAUSE THE

19 INITIAL STUDY DETERMINED (INAUDIBLE) MINERAL RESOURCES,

20 POPULATION, HOUSES, SOCIAL SERVICES.

21 SO, THE REMAINDER OF THESE -- AND I WON'T GO

22 THROUGH ALL OF THEM -- THE IMPACTS THAT WERE EVALUATED

23 IN THE EIR, THE SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA WE USED THE

24 APPENDIX G -- THE CEQA GUIDELINES APPENDIX G IN

25 ADDITION TO CITY OF LOS ANGELES CEQA THRESHOLD


6

1 GUIDANCE. SO, A COMBINATION OF THE TWO.

2 BASED ON THAT, THERE WERE A NUMBER OF IMPACTS

3 THAT WERE DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT AND

4 THEREFORE NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION.

5 THE NEXT CATEGORY ARE IMPACTS THAT ARE

6 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT SO WE HAVE PROPOSED MITIGATION.

7 I WON'T GO THROUGH ALL OF THESE. BUT LARGELY THE

8 IMPACTS WERE ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OR

9 INSTALLATION PHASE AND SO THEY ARE TEMPORARY IMPACTS.

10 A FEW OF THE IMPACTS WERE RESULTING FROM THE

11 OPERATION STAGE MOSTLY BECAUSE OF CABLES ON THE SEA

12 FLOOR AND, SO, MITIGATION IS ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE.

13 AND THEN WE HAD TWO CATEGORIES OF SIGNIFICANT

14 AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS. THESE WERE IMPACTS WHERE WE

15 DETERMINED THE IMPACT TO BE SIGNIFICANT BASED ON THE

16 THE THRESHOLDS WE WERE APPLYING. WE APPLIED

17 MITIGATIONS AND THEY STILL WERE NOT BELOW THE

18 THRESHOLD. SO THEY ARE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE.

19 THE TWO CATEGORIES ARE AIR QUALITY WHERE THE

20 PROJECT -- THE ESTIMATES WE HAVE FOR EMISSIONS COMBINED

21 WERE TERRESTRIAL CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS WHERE WE SEE THE

22 DAILY NOX THRESHOLD ESTABLISHED BY SOUTH COAST AQMD,

23 AND THE NOISE THAT WE'RE USING IN THIS CASE CITY OF

24 LOS ANGELES AS WELL AS CITY OF EL SEGUNDO THRESHOLD FOR

25 CONSTRUCTION. AND DESPITE APPLYING MITIGATION


7

1 MEASURES, WE CANNOT SAY THEY WILL NOT BE SIGNIFICANT.

2 WE EVALUATED A NUMBER OF ALTERNATIVES. WE

3 WENT THROUGH A SCREENING PROCESS THAT IDENTIFIED

4 POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES. AND WE SCREENED THEM BASED ON

5 WHETHER THEY LARGELY MET THE PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND

6 WERE EASILY MEETING THE PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND THEN

7 ALSO ALTERNATIVES THAT HAD A POTENTIAL TO REDUCE SOME

8 OF THE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS IDENTIFIED AT THAT TIME.

9 THE ONES THAT MADE THE SCREENING THAT WERE

10 EVALUATED IN DRAFT EIR ARE THESE. THERE WAS THE NO

11 PROJECT ALTERNATIVE, THIS IS REQUIRED BY CEQA; A BEACH

12 LANDING LOCATION ALTERNATIVE IN HERMOSA BEACH; DATA

13 CENTER ALTERNATIVE, WHICH WAS ANOTHER DATA CENTER A

14 LITTLE FARTHER AWAY FROM THE PROPOSED ONE; A ROUTE

15 ALTERNATIVE ALONG THE TERRESTRIAL ROUTE. THIS ONE

16 WOULD BE ON IMPERIAL HIGHWAY. AND THEN ALSO AN

17 INSTALLATION TECHNIQUE ALTERNATIVE. AND THIS IS

18 TOUCHDOWN MONITORING, WHICH IS TO USE TWO VESSELS TO

19 GET REALTIME INFORMATION ABOUT THE CABLE DURING

20 INSTALLATION.

21 SO, THOSE ARE THE ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN

22 THE EIR.

23 I KNOW YOU CAN'T SEE THIS VERY WELL, BUT IT'S

24 CERTAINLY IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EIR.

25 BUT THE NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE WAS THE ONLY


8

1 ALTERNATIVE THAT WAS ABLE TO AVOID THE SIGNIFICANT

2 EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT. AND MOST OF THE IMPACT -- ALL

3 THE OTHER ALTERNATIVES, WITH ONE EXCEPTION, REALLY, THE

4 IMPACTS WERE NOT REDUCED; IN SOME CASES THEY WERE

5 ACTUALLY A LITTLE GREATER.

6 IN PARTICULAR, THE IMPERIAL HIGHWAY

7 ALTERNATIVE WOULD ACTUALLY MAKE ONE OF THE IMPACTS

8 WORSE. THIS IS THE SUMMARY.

9 SO, THOSE ARE THE BASIC FINDINGS.

10 MR. WILLIAMS: THE EIR IS AVAILABLE FOR YOU

11 ONLINE EXCEPT THE ADDRESS IS DIFFERENT. THE BUREAU

12 DECIDED TO CHANGE OUR WEBSITE OVER THE WEEKEND. AND SO

13 IT'S HARD -- YOU CAN'T GET THERE FROM HERE BASICALLY.

14 SO, WE HAVE A REVISED WEBSITE ADDRESS.

15 BASICALLY, IT'S JUST INTO -- THE LETTER "TWO" AFTER

16 "E."

17 THE OTHER LOCATIONS -- YOU CAN SEE IT -- THE

18 WESTCHESTER CD 11 HERE; PLAYA VISTA, EL SEGUNDO BRANCH

19 LIBRARIES; AND OUR OFFICE DOWNTOWN.

20 HERE, WE CONSIDER VERBAL COMMENTS TO TODAY'S

21 HEARING, COMMENT CARDS WHICH YOU FILLED OUT ALREADY.

22 ANY WRITTEN RESPONSE OR EMAILS SENT TO THE PLAYA

23 ADDRESS -- THE EMAIL ADDRESS ON THE

24 [email protected].

25 AND BE SURE TO HAVE YOUR COMMENTS SUBMITTED


9

1 BY JULY 3.

2 THE REST OF THE HEARING IS YOUR COMMENTS.

3 SO --

4 MR. CASH: I THINK YOU GENERALLY SAID

5 CONSTRUCTION WOULD START DECEMBER, 2017, IF IT GOES AS

6 PLANNED; RIGHT?

7 MR. WILLIAMS: YES. IF ALL THE APPROVALS ARE

8 IN PLACE.

9 MR. CASH: NOW, WOULD IT START

10 SIMULTANEOUSLY, BOTH TERRESTRIAL AND OFFSHORE? OR WILL

11 IT START FROM ONE DIRECTION TO THE OTHER?

12 MS. TOOMBS: LET'S JUST STAY FOR THE PURPOSES

13 OF THE COURT REPORTER IDENTIFY --

14 MR. JONES: SORRY, KATHRYN --

15 MR. CASH: DO I IDENTIFY MYSELF?

16 MS. TOOMBS: YES.

17 MR. CASH: CURTIS CASH FOR THE CITY OF

18 LOS ANGELES, L.A. SANITATION ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

19 DIVISION.

20 WE DO THE --

21 MS. WATERS: JUST TO GO BACK, IF IT WAS GOING

22 TO BE ALL CONSTRUCTION ALL AT ONCE OR IT WOULD BE

23 DEPENDING ON THE APPROVALS IS YOUR QUESTION?

24 MR. CASH: YEAH. WOULD IT -- IF IT WERE TO

25 START DECEMBER, 2017, WOULD IT START ON LAND AND END


CC-1

CC-1

10

1 OFFSHORE JUST WHERE THOSE BORE PIPES ARE AND CONTINUE

2 ON? OR WOULD YOU START AT THE BORE PIPES, MOVE ONSHORE

3 AND SIMULTANEOUSLY GO OFFSHORE?

4 I ONLY ASK BECAUSE THERE COULD HAVE POTENTIAL

5 RAMIFICATIONS ON OUR WATER QUALITY SAMPLING WE DO

6 QUARTERLY. SO, I KNOW THAT WE WILL BE CONTACT AND WE

7 CAN SCHEDULE ACCORDINGLY.

8 AND ONE OTHER THING THOUGH. BY OUR

9 DEFINITION, FOR THE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS I

10 THINK YOU HAD -- YOU HAD LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS

11 WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. WE DESCRIBE ALL THAT

12 SUBSTRATE THERE AS SOFT BOTTOM OR HARD BOTTOM. SO, I

13 DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT DEFINITION OR IF

14 THAT'S A TYPO. I DON'T KNOW.

15 BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE GOING -- YOU

16 KNOW, TRENCHING UNDER ROCK; YOU'RE GOING TO BE GOING

17 THROUGH SAND AND STUFF.

18 THAT WAS JUST A CLARIFICATION.

19 MS. TOOMBS: OKAY. SO, IS THE

20 CLARIFICATION -- WAS THAT WATER OR WAS THAT FOR --

21 WHICH --

22 MS. WATERS: MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES,

23 DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS ON HARD BOTTOM COMMUNITIES

24 FROM CABLING --

25 MS. TOOMBS: CORRECT.


CC-1

CC-2

11

1 TO CLARIFY THAT -- AND THIS IS AGAIN

2 EXPLAINED IN MORE DETAIL IN THE EIR -- THERE IS A

3 ESTIMATE OF THE HARD BOTTOM/SOFT BOTTOM BECAUSE WE

4 ESTIMATED OUT TO -- FARTHER OFF SHORE.

5 SO, IN YOUR AREA YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT IT'S

6 SOFT BOTTOM. BUT WE HAD TO LOOK -- THE STUDY AREA WENT

7 FARTHER OUT; AND, SO, THE HARD BOTTOM IMPACTS THAT THAT

8 REFERS TO ENCOMPASS THE WHOLE STUDY.

9 DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?

10 MR. CASH: YES.

11 IT DOMINATED THE PROJECT AREA FOR THE

12 IMPACT -- POTENTIAL IMPACT AREA?

13 MS. TOOMBS: CORRECT. SO, THE MITIGATION

14 ADDRESSED THE PORTIONS THAT WERE IN HARD BOTTOM.

15 MS. MAGGIONI: REC AND PARKS CITY OF L.A.

16 WHAT'S THE USEFUL LIFE OF THE PROJECT, AND

17 WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO AFTERWARDS?

18 MS. WATERS: SO, THE USEFUL LIFE -- LIFE

19 SPAN OF THE CABLE IS 25 YEARS. AND, SO, IT'S -- THAT

20 WOULD BE THE LIFE SCAN OF THE CABLE.

21 AND THEN AFTERWARDS IT'S PROBABLY DEPENDENT

22 ON CERTAIN PERMITS AND SUCH. SOMETIMES IT'S USED FOR

23 SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH. ALSO THE CABLE, EVEN IF IT'S OUT

24 OF SERVICE FOR THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, WILL BE DECIDED

25 ADD THAT POINT.


MM-1

12

1 MS. MAGGIONI: SO YOU DON'T KNOW?

2 MOST LIKELY YOU ARE GOING TO ABANDONED IT?

3 MS. WATERS: WE'RE JUST CONSTRUCTING THE

4 CABLE. SO, IT WOULD BE UP TO THE CABLE OWNERS OF HOW

5 THEY ARE GOING TO -- WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO DO.

6 MS. TOOMBS: DO YOU KNOW IF THERE ARE ANY

7 SPEAKER CARDS?

8 MR. JONES: WE HAVE SPEAKER CARDS IN THE BACK

9 IF YOU WISH.

10 WERE ANY SPEAKERS --

11 MS. GIOIOSA: I GOT QUESTIONS. WE ARE JUST

12 HOMEOWNERS. WE ARE NOT AFFILIATED WITH ANY

13 ASSOCIATION.

14 REALLY IN THE LETTER THAT WAS GENERAL AND

15 SENT OUT, IT REALLY DOES NOT EXPLAIN WHAT IT IS, WHY

16 IT'S HAPPENING, WHO IS DOING IT, AREAS IMPACTED OTHER

17 THAN STARTING AT DOCKWEILER BEACH. TALKED ABOUT NOISE

18 AND POLLUTION AND SO FORTH.

19 AS HOMEOWNERS, WE ARE HERE REPRESENTING OUR

20 CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION TO FIND OUT EXACTLY WHAT'S

21 TRANSPIRING, WHEN IS IT STARTING, DURATION, JUST THE

22 GENERALITY OF THE PROJECT.

23 MS. TOOMBS: I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANTED TO

24 RESPOND TO THAT BECAUSE WE SORT OF TOUCHED ON THAT.

25 MS. GIOIOSA: A LOT OF PEOPLE WORK FROM 4:00


RG-1

13

1 TO 5:30. EVERYONE IN OUR ASSOCIATION IS WORKING

2 TODAY -- MY HUSBAND GOT OFF EARLY -- AND, SO, WE ARE

3 HERE TO REPRESENT THEM.

4 AND, SO, MAYBE I MISSED IT. BUT IF YOU COULD

5 JUST QUICKLY -- I MEAN, WHO IS DOING THIS --

6 MS. TOOMBS: WOULD IT HELP TO DO A QUICK

7 RECAP, JUST GO BACK TO THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION? WOULD

8 THAT HELP?

9 MS. GIOIOSA: YEAH. I JUST WANT TO KNOW

10 WHO'S DOING THIS PROJECT.

11 MS. WATERS: SUBCOM.

12 MS. GIOIOSA: WHICH IS FOR COMMUNICATIONS?

13 MS. WATERS: YEAH.

14 MS. GIOIOSA: OKAY. OKAY.

15 AND PURPOSE OF THE CABLE?

16 MS. WATERS: THE CABLE IS IN -- THE SUBSEA

17 UNDERWATER FIBER OPTIC CABLE SYSTEM TO CONNECT THE U.S.

18 TO ASIA TO INCREASE CAPACITY, RELIABILITY, AND

19 DIVERSITY OF THE INTERNET.

20 MS. GIOIOSA: SO, IT'S FOR INTERNET?

21 MS. WATERS: YES.

22 MS. GIOIOSA: IT WILL START AT DOCKWEILER.

23 WHEN'S THE PROJECT STARTING?

24 MS. WATERS: THE PROJECT IS PROPOSED TO START

25 IN DECEMBER.


RG-1

RG-1

RG-1

RG-2

14

1 MS. GIOIOSA: OF --

2 MS. WATERS: 2017.

3 MS. GIOIOSA: THAT QUICKLY, HUH?

4 OKAY. AND THEN THE DURATION?

5 MS. WATERS: THE DURATION FOR THE

6 CONSTRUCTION. YEAH --

7 MS. GIOIOSA: AT LEAST THE PART WHERE IT'S

8 GOING TO IMPACT PEOPLE THAT ARE CLOSE TO DOCKWEILER.

9 MS. WATERS: AT DOCKWEILER OR ALONG THE ROUTE

10 INTO --

11 MS. GIOIOSA: YES.

12 MS. WATERS: I THINK WE WILL HAVE TO GET THE

13 SPECIFIC SCHEDULE OUT OF THE EIR. BUT IT'S PROBABLY

14 ABOUT -- I THINK IT WAS TWO MONTHS.

15 MS. GIOIOSA: SO, IT'S JUST TWO MONTHS?

16 OKAY.

17 AND THEN IT SPOKE SPECIFICALLY ABOUT

18 POLLUTION. SO, WHAT TYPE OF POLLUTION ARE YOU

19 ANTICIPATING?

20 MR. JONES: AIR POLLUTION FROM THE --

21 MS. WATER: REFERRING TO THE NOTICE YOU GOT?

22 MS. GIOIOSA: WHAT --

23 MS. TOOMBS: AGAIN, WE KIND OF SUMMARIZED IT

24 THERE.

25 THE -- REALLY, THE ONLY POLLUTION POTENTIAL


RG-2

RG-2

RG-3

15

1 THAT WE DESCRIBE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN POTENTIALLY

2 SIGNIFICANT HAD TO DO WITH AIR EMISSIONS DURING

3 CONSTRUCTION.

4 MS. GIOIOSA: AS YOU KNOW, WE ARE BY LAX SO

5 WE ALREADY HAVE A LOT OF POLLUTION. AND HAVING

6 ADDITIONAL POLLUTION ON TOP OF THAT ISN'T SOMETHING

7 ANYBODY WITH CHILDREN OR SENIOR CITIZENS OR ANYBODY --

8 WE ARE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT ASPECT OF THE

9 PROJECT.

10 EVEN IF IT'S ONLY FOR -- AND THE NOISE. WHAT

11 TYPE OF NOISE ARE YOU ANTICIPATING?

12 MS. TOOMBS: CONSTRUCTION NOISE.

13 MS. GIOIOSA: FROM DIGGING IN SOFT -- IS IT

14 GOING TO BE SOFT SAND YOU ARE -- OR ARE YOU GOING TO BE

15 DOING HARD DIGGING ON HARD SURFACE WHERE YOU ARE

16 HITTING ROCK ANYTHING LIKE THAT?

17 MS. TOOMBS: HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO HANDLE

18 THIS IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS MEETING?

19 BECAUSE I DO WANT TO ADDRESS YOUR QUESTIONS

20 TO MAKE SURE YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY --

21 MR. JONES: COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR AND

22 WE'RE ACCEPTING SPECIFICALLY COMMENTS FOR THE DOCUMENT.

23 PROJECT QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED. BUT

24 THAT'S A SEPARATE VENUE --

25 MS. GIOIOSA: THIS IS THE ONLY THING THE


RG-3

RG-4

16

1 HOMEOWNERS GOT. THAT --

2 MR. JONES: THE DOCUMENT IS AVAILABLE --

3 MS. GIOIOSA: READING THE MATERIAL IS NOT THE

4 SAME AS HAVING SOMEBODY EXPLAIN IT TO YOU. EVEN IN

5 THIS YOU DON'T GO INTO THE PARTICULARS. FOR LAY PEOPLE

6 IT'S NOT AS EASY TO UNDERSTAND.

7 MR. JONES: WELL, THE DOCUMENT IS AVAILABLE

8 FOR YOU TO REVIEW, AND WE HAVE THE DOCUMENT HERE --

9 MS. GIOIOSA: I JUST EXPLAINED TO YOU.

10 THE ONLY THING THEY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT IS

11 TWO ISSUES AND THEN WE CAN LEAVE: POLLUTION, WHERE --

12 WE ALREADY HAVE THE DURATION -- AND THEN NOISE. THAT'S

13 WHAT THE HOMEOWNERS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT.

14 IF YOU CAN ADDRESS THOSE TWO, WE WILL LEAVE.

15 MS. TOOMBS: YOU DON'T HAVE TO LEAVE.

16 WHY DON'T WE BACK UP TO THE SLIDES WE HAVE

17 AND I CAN -- WITHOUT GOING THROUGH ALL OF THEM, I CAN

18 ADDRESS THE COUPLE THAT YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT.

19 YOU CAN STAY FOR ALL OF THEM. THAT'S FINE

20 TOO.

21 MS. GIOIOSA: WHEN YOU WRITE SOMETHING LIKE

22 "AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS," THAT DOESN'T GIVE ME TOO MUCH

23 INFORMATION. THAT'S WHY WE MADE THE MEETING.

24 MS. TOOMBS: THAT'S FINE.

25 JUST FROM A PROCESS STANDPOINT, SO YOU GET


RG-4

RG-4

17

1 THE NOTICE.

2 AND, SO, IT'S BEEN SUCCESSFUL, YOU KNOW ABOUT

3 THE PROJECT, AND YOU'RE HERE. SO THAT'S GOOD.

4 THE DOCUMENTS -- AND I BELIEVE I KNOW SOME OF

5 THOSE ARE NOT EASY TO READ JUST BECAUSE THERE IS A LOT

6 OF IT. BUT WE HAVE THE LONG VERSION HERE AND WE HAVE

7 THE SHORT VERSION, WHICH HE JUST GAVE YOU.

8 NORMALLY THESE ARE NOT -- THESE MEETINGS ARE

9 REALLY JUST TO RECEIVE YOUR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS NOT

10 NECESSARILY EXPLAIN A LOT OF IT.

11 BUT THAT --

12 MS. GIOIOSA: FEEDBACK --

13 MS. TOOMBS: NO. NO. NO. FEEDBACK IS WHAT

14 YOU PROVIDE YOUR COMMENTS TO --

15 MS. GIOIOSA: BUT I WANT YOUR FEEDBACK.

16 MS. TOOMBS: SO, WHAT WE WANT TO DO HERE IS

17 JUST GIVE YOU AN OVERVIEW WHAT THE MAIN IMPACTS ARE.

18 AND THEN SHOULD YOU NEED TO GO BACK AND READ MORE OR

19 ASK MORE QUESTIONS, YOU CAN.

20 SO, THE ONES THAT YOU ASKED ABOUT, SO "LESS

21 THAN SIGNIFICANT" MEANS WE SET THRESHOLDS AND IF THEY

22 DON'T EXCEED THOSE THRESHOLDS WE SAY THEY ARE LESS THAN

23 SIGNIFICANT.

24 MS. GIOIOSA: BUT YOU ARE SAYING THAT HAZARDS

25 AND GAS EMISSIONS ARE SIGNIFICANT; RIGHT? OR IS THAT


RG-5

18

1 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT?

2 MS. TOOMBS: NO. THESE ARE LESS THAN

3 SIGNIFICANT.

4 SO, THE ONES THAT -- THE NEXT CATEGORY WHERE

5 WE HAVE "LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION

6 INCORPORATED," THAT MEANS THAT THEY HIT THOSE

7 THRESHOLDS OR POTENTIALLY DO BECAUSE WE ARE ESTIMATING.

8 SO, WE'RE ONLY TRYING TO DO OUR BEST ESTIMATE

9 OF IT. AND USUALLY WE ARE PRETTY CONSERVATIVE, WHICH

10 MEANS WE LOOK AT PRETTY MUCH A WORSE CASE SCENARIO.

11 AND IF THEY HIT THOSE THRESHOLDS, THEN WE HAVE TO DO

12 SOMETHING TO TRY TO MITIGATE IT.

13 SO, THESE CATEGORIES ARE THE ONES WE HAVE

14 SAID, "OKAY, MAYBE THERE IS GOING TO BE AN IMPACT;

15 THEREFORE, WE ARE GOING TO PUT MEASURES ON IT TO BRING

16 IT DOWN INTO AN ACCEPTABLE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT."

17 THE ONES YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT FALL IN THIS

18 CATEGORY WHERE WE -- AND AIR QUALITY, THAT'S -- I WILL

19 EXPLAIN THAT BECAUSE IT'S IMPORTANT. YOU ASKED A

20 REALLY IMPORTANT QUESTION ABOUT THAT.

21 I WILL START WITH NOISE. WE HAVE THRESHOLDS

22 FOR NOISE THAT ARE SET BY THE CITIES OF EL SEGUNDO AND

23 CITY OF L.A. AND WE USE WHATEVER CITY WE WERE IN.

24 AND FOR THOSE, THOSE -- THERE ARE A WHOLE

25 BUNCH OF DIFFERENT TYPES. BUT TO ANSWER YOUR


RG-5

19

1 QUESTIONS, YOU'RE IN EL SEGUNDO. SO, THE TYPES OF

2 NOISE YOU WOULD EXPERIENCE ALONG THERE, THE REALLY

3 LOUDEST ONE WOULD BE CUTTING THROUGH CONCRETE OR

4 TRENCHING THROUGH CONCRETE. THAT'S GOING TO BE THE

5 LOUDEST NOISE.

6 WE SAID LET'S CONFINE THAT WITH A REALLY LOUD

7 (INAUDIBLE AS MS. GIOIOSA SPEAKING SIMULTANEOUSLY).

8 THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE CUTTING CONCRETE

9 EIGHT HOURS A DAY. SO, WE ARE LOOKING AT -- SO, THERE

10 WILL BE TIMES WHEN THE NOISE EXCEEDS THE THRESHOLD.

11 YOU KNOW, LIKE A DAY CARE CENTER, A HOSPITAL, A SCHOOL

12 ZONE. SO, WHAT THIS MEANS IS THIS WILL BE TEMPORARY

13 INCREASES IN NOISE, MEANING IT'S NOISIER THAN THE

14 THRESHOLDS ARE TARGETED.

15 MR. PUJARI: I HAVE A QUESTION ALSO. I WORK

16 FOR THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, AND I LIVE IN EL SEGUNDO.

17 SO, WE HAVE TOOK A LOT OF -- THE REASON -- MY

18 QUESTION IS THAT HOW KEEP UNDERNEATH TO PUT THE CABLE?

19 WHAT IS THE DEPTH?

20 MS. TOOMBS: WE CAN RESPOND TO THAT IN A

21 MINUTE BECAUSE THAT'S A PROJECT DESCRIPTION ONE.

22 BUT I KNOW THEY HAD A SPECIFIC NOISE

23 QUESTION. SO, IF I CAN --

24 MR. PUJARI: MY QUESTION IS THAT WHEN YOU

25 REMOVE THE SOIL YOU ARE DISTURBING THE SOIL CONDITION.


MP-1

MP-1

20

1 SO, THAT WILL BE A SITUATION WHERE YOU ARE GOING TO

2 REMOVE POLLUTANT POINT ONE ONE B. IT'S POSSIBLE

3 (INAUDIBLE) WHEN YOU TOSS IT AROUND, IT'S IN OUR

4 SYSTEM.

5 AND HOW LONG IS THE CABLE AND WHAT DO THEY DO

6 THIS PROJECT?

7 BECAUSE THIS SUDDENLY. WE ARE TIRED OF BEING

8 EVERY DAY IN EL SEGUNDO. WE NEED A BREAK ALSO.

9 AM I CORRECT?

10 MS. GIOIOSA: 100 PERCENT.

11 MR. PUJARI: BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHEN IT

12 WILL START. LAST 25 YEARS I CANNOT DRIVE PROPERLY

13 BECAUSE ONE PROJECT START, IT FINISH, ANOTHER ONE START

14 NEXT WEEK.

15 MS. GIOIOSA: WHY EL SEGUNDO?

16 WE GOT A LONG SHORELINE IN CALIFORNIA. WHY

17 IS IT ALWAYS EL SEGUNDO?

18 BECAUSE HOMEOWNERS DON'T SHOW UP TO MEETINGS

19 AT 4:00 O'CLOCK?

20 SERIOUSLY?

21 MR. PUJARI: I LIVE IN EL SEGUNDO --

22 MS. GIOIOSA: HAVE A MEETING AT 6:00 AND YOU

23 WILL GET A DIFFERENT RESULT. BUT I AM REPRESENTING 12

24 FAMILIES TODAY.

25 MS. TOOMBS: I WILL TAKE THEM ONE AT A TIME.


RG-6

MP-1

MP-2

21

1 THAT'S A DIFFERENT QUESTION THAN YOU ORIGINALLY ASKED.

2 AND IT'S A FAIR QUESTION. BUT WE SHOULD FINISH THIS

3 THOUGHT AND THEN GO BACK TO WHY --

4 MS. GIOIOSA: WHAT I AM GETTING AT -- I AM VERY

5 BLUNT WHAT I AM GETTING HERE. NO MATTER WHAT THE NOISE

6 OR NO MATTER WHAT THE POLLUTION AND WHAT THE RISKS ARE,

7 YOU ARE GOING TO GO THROUGH WITH THE PROJECT ANYWAY

8 BECAUSE WE ARE DEALING WITH A CORPORATION THAT WANTS TO

9 PUT A CABLE FROM OUR BEACH TO ASIA IN ORDER TO GET

10 BUSINESS FROM THE INTERNET.

11 SO, IT DOESN'T MATTER.

12 I MEAN, CLEARLY THEY'RE SIGNIFICANT AND THEY

13 ARE UNAVOIDABLE. EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE GOT BABIES ALL

14 THE WAY UP TO SENIOR CITIZENS IN THIS AREA, THEY ARE

15 GOING TO BE IMPACTED EVEN IF IT'S ONLY FOR TWO MONTHS.

16 BY WHAT IS ALREADY A HIGH LEVEL OF POLLUTION

17 IN OUR AREA, WE'RE PILING ON. WHY CAN'T IT GO TO A

18 DIFFERENT AREA WHERE WE DON'T HAVE THE FUEL FROM THE

19 JETS, YOU KNOW, THAT WE ARE BREATHING EVERY DAY AND

20 THEN PUTTING THIS ON TOP OF IT?

21 I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY EL SEGUNDO AGAIN.

22 MS. TOOMBS: ON THE AIR, THE SIGNIFICANT

23 AMOUNT OF AVOIDABLE IS SEPARATE FROM WITHIN THE AIR

24 QUALITY ANALYSIS. AND I DO ENCOURAGE YOU TO LOOK AT IT

25 BECAUSE THERE IS SPECIFICALLY A QUESTION ABOUT HEALTH


RG-6

22

1 IMPACTS. AND THAT IS NOT ONE OF THE SIGNIFICANT

2 IMPACTS.

3 MS. GIOIOSA: YOU ARE SAYING THAT THE AIR

4 QUALITY IMPACTED HERE IS NOT GOING TO IMPACT ANYBODY'S

5 HEALTH?

6 MS. TOOMBS: RIGHT. WE DID -- THERE IS A

7 SPECIFIC PART OF THE ANALYSIS THAT LOOKS AT SENSITIVE

8 RECEPTORS. AND THAT ANALYSIS, THE RESULTS OF THAT,

9 WERE NOT SIGNIFICANT --

10 MS. GIOIOSA: DID THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO

11 ALREADY SIGN OFF ON THIS?

12 MS. TOOMBS: NO ONE HAS SIGNED OFF ON IT. WE

13 ARE IN THE COMMENT PERIOD NOW, WHICH IS WHY IT'S REALLY

14 IMPORTANT TO ASK QUESTIONS AND LEARN THE TOPIC.

15 SO, THAT WAS THE AIR.

16 AND THEN THE QUESTION YOU ASKED, "WHY EL

17 SEGUNDO" IS ACTUALLY WHY L.A. BECAUSE IT'S IN L.A.

18 IT'S LANDING IN THE LOS ANGELES BEACH.

19 AND THERE ARE MANY REASONS FOR THAT. AND WE

20 PROBABLY DON'T NEED TO GO INTO ALL OF IT. BUT THERE IS

21 DISCUSSION OF THAT IN NOT ONLY THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION

22 THE --

23 MS. GIOIOSA: THERE IS --

24 MS. TOOMBS: IT HAS TO DO WITH THE PROXIMITY

25 TO DATA CENTERS AND OTHER THINGS.


RG-7

RG-8

23

1 MS. PAYNE: THAT IS THE SCHEDULE. AND WE

2 HAVE HERE THE HOURS FOR WORK WITHIN EL SEGUNDO, WHICH

3 IS 9:00 TO 3:00 MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY --

4 MS. GIOIOSA: DOCKWEILER.

5 WHERE IN EL SEGUNDO? IT'S NOT ALL OF

6 DOCKWEILER, IS IT?

7 MR. JONES: THERE'S A --

8 MS. GIOIOSA: THAT'S OKAY. I GOT A PICTURE.

9 MS. TOOMBS: ALL THE DOCUMENTS ARE THERE --

10 MS. GIOIOSA: YOU CAN TELL WE ARE JUST

11 CONCERNED BECAUSE OF, YOU KNOW, THE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.

12 MS. TOOMBS: NO. I MEAN, IT'S GOOD TO ASK

13 QUESTIONS. THAT'S WHY WE ARE HERE.

14 MS. PAYNE: I JUST WANTED TO MAKE ONE

15 COMMENT, THAT THERE WAS A SCOPING MEETING AS WELL THAT

16 WAS HELD HERE BACK IN OCTOBER WHEN WE WERE DRAFTING THE

17 DOCUMENT. AND THAT WAS 5:00 TO 6: --30

18 MS. GIOIOSA: DIDN'T GET THE LETTER. THIS IS

19 THE FIRST I HEARD ABOUT IT.

20 MS. PAYNE: IT'S THE SAME MAILING LIST.

21 SIMILAR NOTICE TO THE SAME MAILING LIST. AND WE DID

22 NOT HAVE ANY ATTENDEES. SO, WE TRIED MOVING IT A

23 LITTLE BIT EARLIER THINKING MAYBE THAT WOULD ATTRACT

24 PEOPLE. WE DO HAVE MORE ATTENDEES THIS TIME.

25 MS. GIOIOSA: ARE THEY RESIDENTS OR BUSINESS


RG-9

RG-10

24

1 OWNERS OR CITY WORKERS?

2 THIS IS OURS TOO?

3 MS. PAYNE: SURE.

4 MR. JONES: THIS IS THE REVISED WEBSITE

5 ADDRESS.

6 MS. GIOIOSA: THANK YOU.

7 MR. JONES: THAT WAS ANOTHER PROBLEM. WE

8 HAVE TWO EIRS OUT AT THE SAME TIME.

9 MS. GIOIOSA: SO, THE TRAFFIC WILL BE

10 SIGNIFICANT, THEN, WITH ALL THE TRUCKS GOING IN AND

11 OUT?

12 AND THIS IS THE ROUTE?

13 MS. TOOMBS: TRAFFIC ANALYSIS IN -- THE

14 IMPACTS FOR THAT WERE NOT SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE.

15 WE HAVE MITIGATIONS FOR THAT.

16 MS. GIOIOSA: OKAY.

17 MS. TOOMBS: I MEAN, THERE WILL BE TRAFFIC.

18 THERE ARE MEASURES WE ARE TAKING TO -- WE PROPOSED IN

19 THERE TO REDUCE THEM.

20 MR. CASH: CURTIS CASH FOR THE CITY OF L.A.

21 BUT I AM ALSO A RESIDENT OF PLAYA DEL REY. I'M

22 SPEAKING FROM THAT STANDPOINT RIGHT NOW.

23 YOU KNOW, YOU'RE PROBABLY AWARE THEY JUST

24 STARTED TO IMPLEMENT A SAFETY PILOT PROJECT ON VISTA

25 DEL MAR WHERE THEY REDUCED IT DOWN TO ONE LANE WHERE


CC-3

RG-10

RG-11

25

1 THAT'S CREATING A LOT OF TRAFFIC ALREADY. HAVE YOU

2 TAKEN THAT INTO CONSIDERATION FOR THE ANALYSIS?

3 MS. TOOMBS: GOOD QUESTION.

4 I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HEARD THAT QUESTION. THE

5 QUESTION WAS ABOUT THE VISTA DEL MAR TRAFFIC.

6 I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE A COMMENT ABOUT IT.

7 MR. JONES: THAT WAS A L.A. IDEA OR WAS IT

8 BUREAU SERVICES?

9 MR. CASH: IT'S PUT ON BY COUNCIL DISTRICT

10 11. IT'S SANCTIONED BY THEM. THEY SENT OUT AN

11 ANNOUNCEMENT JUST A FEW WEEKS AGO. AND THEN THEY

12 IMPLEMENTED IT.

13 AND THEY ARE ACTUALLY TRYING TO REDUCE

14 TRAFFIC COMING FROM PEOPLE TRANSITING FROM SOUTH BAY TO

15 THE WEST SIDE AND BEYOND BECAUSE PEOPLE -- THE FIRST

16 PHASE HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED ON VISTA DEL MAR REDUCING IT

17 DOWN TO ONE LANE BETWEEN LOWER PLAYA DEL REY WHERE IT

18 MEETS CULVER BOULEVARD EXTENDING ALL THE WAY ALMOST

19 DOWN TO HYPERION TREATMENT PLANT.

20 THAT'S -- FOR LACK OF BETTER TERM, THAT'S,

21 LIKE, FIRST PHASE. AND THERE ARE TWO OTHER PHASES:

22 ONE TO REDUCE CULVER BOULEVARD DOWN TO ONE LANE INSTEAD

23 OF FOUR, AND THE SAME AGAIN AT MANCHESTER WHERE IT

24 MEETS UP WITH CULVER --

25 MS. TOOMBS: CULVER TO PLAYA VISTA -- PLAYA


CC-3

CC-3

26

1 DEL REY? THAT CULVER --

2 MR. CASH: IT'S BASICALLY NICKERSON TO VISTA

3 DEL MAR. THEY ARE GOING TO REDUCE THAT DOWN TO ONE

4 LANE. CONSTRUCTION ALSO. THEN MANCHESTER FROM

5 CULVER -- I MEAN, PURGING TO MANCHESTER TO CULVER DOWN

6 TO ONE LANE.

7 THOSE THINGS COMBINE --

8 MS. TOOMBS: THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THAT WAS

9 CONSIDERED.

10 THE ANSWER IS NO. WE DID A CUMULATIVE IMPACT

11 ANALYSIS. WE DID LOOK FOR PLANNED AND ANTICIPATED

12 PROJECTS IN THE AREA. THAT ONE DID NOT COME UP. AT

13 LEAST I DON'T THINK WE SAW THAT ONE. SO -- SO, IT'S

14 NOT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED.

15 HOWEVER, THE PROJECT DOES NOT -- WILL NOT BE

16 ON VISTA DEL MAR. SO, THE PORTION ON DOCKWEILER, THE

17 TRAFFIC INGRESS AND EGRESS FOR THAT WILL BE LARGELY BE

18 DURING MOBILIZATION AND DEMOBILIZATION STAGES SO THERE

19 SHOULD NOT BE ANY EQUIPMENT STAGED ON VISTA DEL MAR.

20 MR. CASH: YOU WILL PROBABLY USE THAT BEACHES

21 AND HARBOR COUNTY ROAD --

22 MS. TOOMBS: SOUTH MARINE AVENUE SO -- THAT

23 WILL BE THE ACCESS TO THE PARKING LOT AT DOCKWEILER.

24 AND ALSO THAT'S WHERE THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION IS. SO,

25 THERE IS NO CONSTRUCTION ON VISTA DEL MAR JUST ACROSS


CC-3

27

1 THAT ONE.

2 MR. JONES: BUT IT'S A GOOD COMMENT. I WILL

3 HAVE TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER ANY COASTAL PERMIT WAS

4 TAKEN OUT OR CEQA ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE COUNCIL

5 DISTRICT.

6 MS. TOOMBS: SO, THE FINAL, WHEN WE

7 INCORPORATE COMMENTS, THAT WILL BE ADDED TO IT.

8 MR. CASH: SINCE YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO BE

9 TRENCHING ALL THE WAY DOWN IMPERIAL HIGHWAY TO THE

10 BEACH, THAT'S GOING TO AT LEAST TAKE UP ONE LANE.

11 THERE'S ONLY A TWO-LANE ROAD GOING IN THAT DIRECTION.

12 SO THAT MEANS ALL THE TRAFFIC'S GOING TO BE FUNNELED

13 INTO ONE LANE. THAT'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF TRAFFIC --

14 MS. PAYNE: IMPERIAL AVENUE YOU MEAN, NOT

15 HIGHWAY?

16 MS. GIOIOSA: WE HAVE BRAND NEW CONDOS AND

17 NOW WE ARE WORRIED ABOUT OUR PROPERTY VALUE TOO. WE

18 WERE THINKING ABOUT SELLING --

19 MR. CASH: THIS IS GOING RIGHT DOWN THE

20 MIDDLE OF THE ROAD? IS IT GOING TO THE SIDE?

21 WHERE IS IT GOING TO BE TRENCHED?

22 MS. TOOMBS: BE ON THE SIDE.

23 MS. GIOIOSA: OF IMPERIAL AVENUE?

24 THAT'S OUR STREET.

25 SERIOUSLY, ON IMPERIAL AVENUE, WHAT ABOUT THE


CC-4

CC-4

RG-12

28

1 HOMES THAT ARE THERE?

2 MS. TOOMBS: THIS WAS IN CONSULTATION WITH

3 THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO BALANCING IMPERIAL HIGHWAY AND

4 IMPERIAL AVENUE AND WHERE --

5 MS. GIOIOSA: THEY DIDN'T TALK TO US I CAN

6 TELL YOU THAT. WE DIDN'T GET A LETTER. WAIT UNTIL

7 EVERYBODY GETS --

8 MR. CASH: WHAT DO YOU THINK THE DURATION OF

9 THAT'S GOING TO BE SO WE HAVE AN IDEA OF -- THAT

10 TRENCHING -- JUST I AM TALKING ABOUT THE TRENCHING

11 ASPECT ALL THE WAY TO THE BEACH.

12 IT STARTS AT -- CROSSES OVER AND IT STARTS

13 AT --

14 MS. GIOIOSA: WE ARE GOING TO GET THE NOISE

15 YOU ARE SAYING FROM THE TRENCHING?

16 MR. CASH: WHEN THEY TRENCH, THEY ARE GOING

17 TO HAVE BACKHOES OUT THERE TO TRENCH AGAIN IN ORDER TO

18 LAY THE CABLE.

19 SO, I AM -- YOU GUYS HAVE THAT --

20 MS. TOOMBS: IS YOUR CONDO -- YOU SAID YOU'RE

21 WITH AN ASSOCIATION?

22 MS. GIOIOSA: YEAH. I AM PRESIDENT OF OUR

23 HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION.

24 MS. TOOMBS: PERHAPS WHAT WOULD MAKE SENSE

25 WOULD BE TO HAVE A SEPARATE CONVERSATION SO THAT MORE


CC-5

RG-12

RG-13

29

1 DIRECT QUESTIONS WILL BE ANSWERED. BECAUSE, REALLY,

2 THE GOAL OF THIS MEETING IS TO RECEIVE COMMENTS, YOU

3 KNOW. ALSO FOR EVERYBODY TO HEAR THINGS. THAT MIGHT

4 BE A BETTER WAY TO ANSWER SOME OF YOUR QUESTIONS.

5 MR. CASH: I GUESS MY QUESTION IS YOU

6 PROBABLY TALKED TO THE CITY COUNSEL IN EL SEGUNDO ABOUT

7 THIS PROJECT, NO?

8 MS. TOOMBS: WE WILL. PROJECTS LIKE THIS

9 DURING THE PLANNING STAGES --

10 MR. CASH: YEAH, YEAH --

11 MS. GIOIOSA: THAT'S JUST NOT APPROPRIATE.

12 LIKE I SAID, THERE IS A LOT OF FAMILIES ON THAT STREET

13 AND A LOT OF KIDS ARE THERE. AND IT'S JUST GOING TO

14 CREATE A SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM FOR THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE

15 ON -- YOU KNOW, I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF APARTMENT THERE

16 TOO. IT DOESN'T MATTER. BUT THERE IS A LOT OF

17 FAMILIES THERE.

18 I MEAN, I DON'T THINK YOU GUYS WOULD

19 APPRECIATE IN FRONT OF YOUR HOUSE ALL THIS TRENCHING

20 GOING ON. I AM SURE OF THAT.

21 ALL RIGHT. READY TO GO?

22 I THINK WE HAVE GOT WHAT WE NEED; NOW WE GOT

23 TO GO TO CITY HALL.

24 MS. TOOMBS: AGAIN, THE DOCUMENTATION IS

25 THERE --


CC-6

30

1 MS. GIOIOSA: THANK YOU FOR THAT. I WILL

2 SHARE IT WITH EVERYBODY, HAVE OUR PROPERTY MANAGERS

3 THAT MANAGE OUR ASSOCIATION FOR US REVIEW THIS FOR US

4 TOO.

5 I DON'T KNOW IT WAS IMPERIAL -- I DON'T

6 KNOW --

7 MR. GIOIOSA: APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

8 MS. GIOIOSA: BUT THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR

9 TAKING THE TIME TO EXPLAIN THIS TO US. TAKE CARE.

10 MR. CASH: WHAT'S YOUR ADDRESS --

11 MS. GIOIOSA: 620 WEST -- WE'RE ABOUT A MILE

12 FROM DOCKWEILER.

13 MR. CASH: 620 WEST IS PROBABLY STILL ON

14 IMPERIAL HIGHWAY.

15 MS. GIOIOSA: NO. WE'RE ON IMPERIAL AVENUE.

16 MR. CASH: I KNOW. BUT IT'S TRENCHED UP TO

17 ABOUT HILLCREST. HILLCREST -- THAT'S -- YEAH.

18 MS. GIOIOSA: WE'RE CLOSER TO THE BEACH.

19 MR. CASH: I REALIZE THAT.

20 WHAT I AM SAYING IS IT'S TRENCHED ON IMPERIAL

21 HIGHWAY UNTIL HILLCREST AND THEN COMES UP TO IMPERIAL

22 AVENUE.

23 MS. GIOIOSA: WHERE IS HILLCREST?

24 MR. CASH: IT'S SHOWING HERE ON IMPERIAL

25 AVENUE. HERE'S IMPERIAL AVENUE. THIS RED LINE GOING


31

1 ALL THE WAY DOWN TO HERE.

2 WHERE ARE YOU COMPARED TO THE AREA?

3 MS. GIOIOSA: BY ACACIA PARK.

4 MS. PAYNE: DID YOU SIGN -- WILL YOU PUT YOUR

5 NAME --

6 MS. GIOIOSA: I SIGNED IT, YES.

7 DO YOU NEED THIS AS WELL?

8 MS. PAYNE: NO. JUST SO WE HAVE --

9 MS. GIOIOSA: THANK YOU SO MUCH. WE

10 APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

11 MR. JONES: FOR THE RECORD, CAN YOU GIVE YOUR

12 NAME.

13 MS. TOOMBS: WE HAVE IT.

14 MR. JONES: THE COURT REPORTER.

15 MS. GIOIOSA: RUSTI, R-U-S-T-I. AND MY LAST

16 NAME G-I-O-I-O-S-A. GIOIOSA.

17 I WISH YOU LUCK, BUT I HOPE THEY CHANGE THE

18 LOCATION.

19 MR. CASH: I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION. CURTIS

20 CASH, CITY OF L.A. IT'S A CONSTRUCTION-RELATED ONE.

21 YOU SAID THAT THE CABLE HAD A 25-YEAR LIFE

22 EXPECTANCY.

23 I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH SOME TERRESTRIAL

24 FIBER OPTIC LAYING. AND THEY HAVE LIKE A PRIMARY

25 CONDUIT WITH INNERDUCT IN BETWEEN THAT THEY CAN


CC-7

32

1 OCCASIONALLY PUT A NEW FIBER IN OR REPAIR IT. IS THAT

2 POSSIBLE WITH --

3 MS. TOOMBS: NO --

4 MR. PRATT: IT'S LIKE ONCE IT'S DONE THEY

5 HAVE TO REPLACE THE WHOLE THING?

6 MS. TOOMBS: YEAH, YOU CAN'T REALLY REPLACE

7 IT.

8 MR. PUJARI: HOW DEEP IS THE CABLE? IT'S

9 GOING ACROSS THE PACIFIC OCEAN? HOW DEEP UNDER THE

10 SUBSTRATE--

11 MS. WATERS: IT GOES -- IT FILLS OUT FOR A

12 CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME AND THEN IT'S LAID ON THE SEA

13 FLOOR. ON LAND IT'S ABOUT 4 FEET BELOW.

14 MR. JONES: IT WILL ALSO BE BURIED FOR A

15 CERTAIN DISTANCE OUT UNDER THE SEA FLOOR JUST UNTIL

16 WHERE THE --

17 MS. ODERLIN: I HAVE A QUESTION. ERIN

18 ODERLIN, CITY OF LOS ANGELES.

19 WE NOTICE THAT THERE IS FOUR SUBCOM CABLES IN

20 THIS DRAFT EIR. WHEN WILL THE OTHER TWO BE INSTALLED?

21 DO YOU HAVE A DATE FOR THAT?

22 MS. WATERS: THERE IS NO DATE AT THIS TIME.

23 MS. ODERLIN: JUST LEAVE IT OPEN TO INSTALL

24 MORE IF NEEDED?

25 MS. WATERS: YEAH. TO HAVE THE


CC-7

MP-4

EO-1

MP-1

33

1 INFRASTRUCTURE THERE.

2 MS. ODERLIN: THAT WOULD BE LAID ALONG THE --

3 IT WOULD EXPAND THE EXCLUSION ZONE OFFSHORE BUT IT

4 WOULD BE LAID ALONG THE SAME ROUTE?

5 MS. WATERS: UH-HUH.

6 MS. TOOMBS: OR APPROXIMATELY. THEY'D HAVE

7 TO EVALUATE IT AT THAT TIME.

8 MR. CASH: THIS IS PRETTY SMALL DIAMETER.

9 WHY WOULDN'T YOU PUT THEM ALL FOUR OF THEM TOGETHER AND

10 OUR EXCLUSION ZONE WOULD BE MUCH NARROWER?

11 BUT I HAVE A THEORY WHAT THAT ANSWER MIGHT

12 BE. JUST BY THE RANDOM CHANCE OF ONE GETTING DAMAGED

13 THE OTHER THREE WILL STILL BE --

14 MS. ODERLIN: WE HAVE A LOT OF LOCATIONS

15 RIGHT NEAR WHERE THIS CONSTRUCTION IS GOING ON, SO

16 WE'RE A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT WHERE WE WOULD RELOCATE

17 AND IF THEY WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO WHAT OUR GOAL IS,

18 WHICH IS MONITORING OUR OUTFALL.

19 MR. CASH: I AM GOING TO BE LEAVING NOW.

20 THANK YOU SO MUCH. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. AND WE

21 WILL BE IN TOUCH.

22 WE WILL HAVE SOME WRITTEN COMMENTS. BUT

23 NOTHING REALLY BEYOND WHAT WE -- I DO HAVE ONE -- I

24 HAVE SOME QUESTIONS. AND I THINK YOU MAY HAVE BROUGHT

25 IT UP PRIOR TO THE MEETING.


CC-8

EO-1

34

1 IN THE MARINE BIOLOGICAL IMPACT ANALYSIS DID

2 THE SUSPENSION WHERE YOU ARE GOING TO BE ACTUALLY

3 REMOVING THE SUBSTRATE AND BURYING THIS AND COVERING IT

4 UP, THE SUSPENSION -- I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO READ

5 IT, I JUST SAW IT YESTERDAY BECAUSE I WAS ON VACATION.

6 SO, DO YOU HAVE A --

7 MS. TOOMBS: THERE WILL BE WATER QUALITY

8 REQUIREMENTS THAT WILL HAVE TO BE WATER QUALITY --

9 MR. PUJARI: IS SOMEBODY GOING TO DOCUMENT IT

10 WHEN YOU DO THIS JOB, SOMEBODY TAKE SAMPLES TO

11 DETERMINE THAT THEY ARE?

12 MS. TOOMBS: THERE WILL BE WATER QUALITY

13 MONITORING. THE EXACT PERMIT CONDITIONS HAVEN'T BEEN

14 DETERMINED YET. SO --

15 MR. CASH: WOULD THAT INCLUDE (INAUDIBLE FROM

16 THE BACK ROW OF ROOM.)

17 MR. PUJARI: WE -- FOR THE CITY OF L.A., WE

18 MONITOR SANTA MONICA BAY POLLUTANTS. WHO KNOWS 50

19 YEARS. AND WE -- THE POLLUTANT SANTA MONICA BAY HAS

20 GONE DOWN. AND I AM GOING TO ANNOUNCE IT TOMORROW THAT

21 NOT NECESSARILY GOOD NEWS (INAUDIBLE).

22 SO WHEN YOU DIG NOT ONLY -- WE HELP PUT

23 THE -- SOMEBODY SHOULD HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ARE

24 DISTURBING THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS.

25 MR. JONES: ANY OTHER COMMENTS?


MP-3

35

1 MR. CASH: TRYING TO LOOK UP 600 WEST

2 IMPERIAL AND I CAN'T. TOO SHAKY. SO -- IT'S RIGHT AT

3 THE -- 700 IS WEST OF HILLCREST. BUT I'M NOT SURE 600

4 BLOCK.

5 MS. TOOMBS: IN CONVERSATION WITH THE CITY OF

6 EL SEGUNDO BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF PIPELINES IN AN

7 AREA THEY WILL NOT ALLOW DRILLING. SO, TRENCHING IS

8 REALLY THE ONLY OPTION. YOU COULD BREAK SOMETHING.

9 AND THERE IS A LOT OF, YOU KNOW, OLDER PIPELINES AND

10 IMPACTABLE.

11 MR. CASH: WITH THE FLEXIBILITY OF THIS

12 PROJECT THEY WILL PROBABLY JUST GO TO BE SIX FEET OR

13 SO? TWO FEET, FOUR FEET --

14 MS. TOOMBS: MAYBE 4 FEET. WHATEVER THE --

15 MR. CASH: -- BECAUSE IT IS VERY HILLY THERE.

16 SO, IT WOULD BE EASY IF YOU JUST STAY AT 4 FEET. IT

17 WILL WORK.

18 MS. PAYNE: AND IT'S ALSO VERY SOFT BECAUSE

19 IT'S SAND.

20 MR. CASH: MOST OF IT, YES.

21 MS. PAYNE: SO YOU JUST NEED TO CUT THE --

22 MR. CASH: IT'S COMPACTING IT BACK SO THAT IT

23 DOESN'T -- BUT IT'S BASICALLY LIKE ANY OF THE SEWER OR

24 WATER PIPE. HOW MUCH -- WE DO IT ALL OVER TOWN. I

25 SHOULD HAVE SEEN --


MJ1

36

1 MS. PAYNE: IT WILL BE DONE DURING BUSINESS

2 HOURS. 9:00 TO 3:00 P.M. IN EL SEGUNDO MONDAY THROUGH

3 FRIDAY ARE THE CONSTRUCTION RESTRICTION HOURS.

4 MS. TOOMBS: THE ONLY EXCEPTION WOULD BE THE

5 HDD AND BEACH WHERE IT'S ADVANTAGEOUS TO GO 24 HOURS TO

6 GET IT DONE. ALL THOSE --

7 MR. CASH: MR. EVEN WHEN YOU GO UP TO

8 SEPULVEDA, THE LAST OF IT IS RESIDENTIAL -- I MEAN IT'S

9 COMMERCIAL, SO YOU WILL GET CROSS ON MAPLE. THAT'S

10 GOING TO BE TIGHT.

11 BUT, IT'S DONE ALL THE TIME. WE JUST -- WE

12 WE DID MAPLE AT SEPULVEDA. AND IT'S FAIRLY TIGHT.

13 BUT I MEAN THERE IS GAS STATION THERE AND

14 THERE'S OTHER THINGS SO. WISH YOU LUCK.

15 MS. TOOMBS: THANK YOU.

16 IF YOU NEED ANY OTHER MATERIALS, LET US KNOW.

17 WE WILL HAPPY TO -- YOU HAVE -- I DON'T KNOW IF WE WILL

18 GET ANY OTHER PEOPLE TONIGHT. SO, ANOTHER SET.

19 MR. CASH: YOU CAN GET THEM FROM THE

20 INTERNET.

21 I'M SORRY. I GOT AN OWNER I WORK FOR AT

22 IMPERIAL AVENUE EAST BUT IT'S STILL GOING TO BE

23 AFFECTED. I MEAN, IT'S LIKE ANY OTHER CONSTRUCTION

24 THOUGH. THEY HAVE ONE DRIVEWAY FOR 19 UNITS. AND IT'S

25 OFF OF IMPERIAL. ALMOST ALL OF IT IS OFF IMPERIAL


MJ2

37

1 HIGHWAY. ALL THE APARTMENTS. ONLY ONE DRIVEWAY IN FOR

2 WHAT AMOUNT OF CARS. THEY CAN GET INTO THAT PLACE AND

3 REST -- AND THE REST SIT ON THE -- I -- GOING DURING

4 THE DAY IS MUCH BETTER IF THEY CUT AND COVER.

5 MR. JONES: YOU FOR COMING.

6 MS. TOOMBS: IT'S 5:00 O'CLOCK, WE ARE

7 ADJOURNING THE MEETING.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


38

1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ))

2 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )

3

4 I, GAIL PEEPLES, CSR 11458, CERTIFIED

5 SHORTHAND REPORTER, DO HEREBY CERTIFY:

6 THAT SAID HEARING WAS TAKEN DOWN BY ME IN

7 SHORTHAND AT THE TIME AND PLACE THEREIN NAMED AND

8 THEREAFTER TRANSCRIBED UNDER MY DIRECTION;

9 I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT I AM NEITHER COUNSEL

10 FOR NOR RELATED TO ANY PARTY TO SAID PROCEEDINGS.

11 I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE

12 LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING IS

13 TRUE AND CORRECT.

14

15 DATED: JULY 7, 2014

16

17 _______________________________GAIL PEEPLES

18 CSR NO. 11458

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)


http://www.tcpdf.org



2.4. Comment Responses

Table 2-2: Responses to Written and Phone Comments

Comment Number Comment Text Draft EIR

Section Response

S1-1 I need to confirm the difference between this project and the proposed Transpacific Cable Optic Project I reviewed in 2015.

Section 2.0, Project Description

The other project that was likely reviewed by California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) in 2015 is a similar fiber optic cable system that landed at Hermosa Beach. The Applicant was MC Global. This Draft EIR is for the Los Angeles Trans-Pacific Telecommunications Cable Hub proposed by TE SubCom, which will be installed west of Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) at Dockweiler State Beach. A terrestrial conduit route is proposed for installation between the parking lot at Dockweiler State Beach and a data center in El Segundo, as detailed in the Draft EIR (Section 2.0, Project Description).




Section Response

L1-1 Hi William, in my opinion 3.1.1.1. lacks any detail. I've been asked which other permits this project requires and I really can't say. I think that : "The impact analysis was conducted with the following general assumptions: • The laws, regulations, and policies applicable to the City in

authorizing approvals for fiber optic cable facilities would be applied consistently to the proposed Project.

• All applicable laws, regulations, and standards of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, City of Los Angeles, and City of El Segundo would be applied consistently to the proposed Project.

• The Applicant will obtain all required permits and approvals from other agencies and comply with all legally applicable terms and conditions associated with those permits and approvals."

is a little vague. Do you have any idea of which permits this project needs?

Section 3.1, Environmental Setting and Impact Analysis – Introduction

A table outlining the permits required for construction and operation of the proposed Project has been added to the Project Description in the Final EIR (Section 3.0, Clarifications and Modifications). Assumptions related to specific laws and regulations as they apply to the Project are also provided within each of the resource discussions in the Draft EIR (Sections 3.2 through 3.14), as appropriate.

L2-1 Based on the project description, we have determined the project is unrelated to sewer capacity availability and therefore do not have sufficient details to offer an analysis at this time. Should the project description change, please continue to send us information so that we may determine if sewer assignment is required in the future.


Comment noted.

L3-1 The study lacks a section that addresses the permits that would be needed to implement the project, and the other federal, state and local agencies involved in the approval process, included the permitting process at the western end of the project.


A table outlining the permits required for construction and operation of the proposed Project has been added to the Project Description in the Final EIR (Section 3.0, Clarifications and Modifications).




Section Response

L3-2 Furthermore, while the analysis of the potential impact on marine biology resources discusses a number of mitigation measures, it is not clear to which segments of the proposed project these measures apply. Whether they apply only to state water, or they extend to the US territorial waters or (in the case of the marine wildlife monitoring plan, to the entire extension of the project).

Section 5.0, Marine Biological Resources

Input from subject matter experts as well as from state and federal permit requirements for other subsea cable systems in the region were taken into consideration when developing mitigation measures for the Draft EIR. A number of the measures were developed in consultation with the California Coastal Commission (CCC) for consistency with their expected permit requirements. In several cases – for example, burial of the cable in soft sediments out to 1,200-meter water depth – the length of the cable route included in the measure is determined by the environmental conditions (i.e., substrate type and water depth) in order to reduce a specific impact (e.g., impacts on marine mammals and commercial fishing) and does not directly align with a jurisdiction. Where applicable, the relevant jurisdiction has been added to the mitigation measure descriptions for Marine Biological Resources in the Final EIR (Section 3.0, Clarifications and Modifications).




Section Response

L3-3 Also, the impacts of the marine construction phase on water quality is dismissed as non-significant. But the EIR does not support this assumption effectively. According to the proposed project, the PLCN Subsea Fiber Optic Cable would be buried 3 ft under the sea floor from about 4,511 ft. (1,375 m) out to water depths 3,937 ft (1,200 m). On page 3.10-22, the study states that the project could affect marine water quality due to “Disturbance, suspension, and/or redistribution of impacted Bay sediments during marine construction activities. Pollutants known to be in Bay sediments include pesticides, PCBs, PAHs, TBT, metals, pathogenic bacteria and viruses, total suspended solids, nutrients, trash and debris, chlorine, oxygen demands, and oil and grease.” On page 3.10-24, the study adds that “Seafloor sediment disturbance could therefore degrade water quality and have adverse impacts on marine biological communities, including benthic (bottom dwelling) organisms or spawning habitats (see Section 3.5, Marine Biological Resources).” However, further on page 3.10-24 it states that “Sediment disturbance and redistribution from cable installation would be short-term and localized, as re-suspended sediments would settle onto the seafloor shortly after disturbance.” This statement is not backed by any empirical evidence. Given the fact that the 3 feet deep trench would be in an highly polluted area, would start relatively near to the shore close to the terminus of the 1 mile Hyperion outfall, would cross the 5 miles Hyperion outfall area and would stretch for more than 50 miles, out to the Santa Cruz Basin, it would be appropriate to provide further scientific reassurance that the suspended sediments would not reach the coast and interfere with the recreational activities at Dockweiler Beach or anywhere else on the Pacific Coast and with the marine ecology.

Section 9.0, Hazards and Public Safety Section 10.0, Hydrology and Water Quality

As discussed in Draft EIR Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, sediment disturbance as a result of cable installation activities would be both short-term and localized. Additional information regarding this statement has been added to the discussion in Section 3.9, Hazards and Public Safety, and Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality. These modifications are listed in the Final EIR (Section 3.0, Clarifications and Modifications).




Section Response

L4-1 The project description does not specifically mention that the Recreation and Parks Department has jurisdiction over submerged lands and tide lands. The Draft EIR acknowledges that this jurisdiction is within the City of LA. However, the Recreation and Parks Department needs to be specifically referenced.


A correction has been made to the Project Description in the Final EIR (Section 3.0, Clarifications and Modifications) that identifies the Department of Recreation and Parks as having jurisdiction over the submerged lands and tidal lands owned by the City of Los Angeles.



Table 2-3: Comments from the Public Hearing, June 6, 2017

Name Comment Number Comment Draft EIR

Section Response

Curtis Cash CC1

I think you generally said construction would start December, 2017, if it goes as planned; right?... now, would it start simultaneously, both terrestrial and offshore? Or will it start from one direction to the other? … If it were to start December, 2017, would it start on land and end offshore just where those bore pipes are and continue on? Or would you start at the bore pipes, move onshore and simultaneously go offshore? I only ask because there could have potential ramifications on our water quality sampling we do quarterly. So, I know that we will be contact and we can schedule accordingly.


Project construction can begin once CEQA is complete and all necessary permits are in place. Draft EIR Section 2.0, Project Description, provides a provisional timeline for Project construction, by activity. Construction of the marine bore pipes by horizontal directional drilling (HDD) is expected to begin in January of 2018 and last for approximately 3 – 4 months. Installation of the two planned subsea cables is planned to begin in March and April 2018, respectively. The direction of lay (sea to shore or shore to sea) would be determined closer to the time of installation. The Applicant would be in regular communication with all applicable agencies and marine users in the Project Area in advance of installation to avoid interference with other activities to the extent possible.




Section Response

Curtis Cash CC2

And one other thing though. By our definition, for the less than significant impacts I think you had – You had less than significant impacts with mitigation measures incorporated. We describe all that substrate there as soft bottom or hard bottom. So, I don’t know if you have a different definition or if that’s a typo. I don’t know. Because you’re not going to be going – You know, trenching under rock; You’re going to be going through sand and stuff. That was just a clarification.

Section 3.5, Marine Biological Resources Appendix E

Draft EIR Section 3.5, Marine Biological Resources, assesses potential impacts from marine cable installation on soft bottom and hard bottom habitats in the study area. The study area extends from the high water mark to the edge of the outer continental shelf. Draft EIR Appendix E provides a detailed map of the sediment types crossed by the proposed cable routes within the study area. The nearshore area is primarily sand; farther offshore, the cable crosses clay and hard bottom substrates. The cables would be buried in soft sediments to a depth of 3 feet (approximately 1 meter) where feasible in water depths less than 3,937 feet (1,200 meters). In areas of hard bottom, the cable would be surface-laid with only enough slack to allow the cable to conform to the seabed.




Section Response

Curtis Cash CC3

You’re probably aware they just started to implement a safety pilot project on Vista Del Mar where they reduced it down to one lane where that’s creating a lot of traffic already. Have you taken that into consideration for the analysis?.... …And they are actually trying to reduce traffic coming from people [transiting] from South Bay to the West Side and beyond because people – The first phase has been implemented on Vista Del Mar reducing it down to one lane between Lower Playa Del Rey where it meets Culver Boulevard extending all the way almost down to Hyperion Treatment Plant. That’s – for lack of better term, that’s, like, first phase. And there are two other phases: One to reduce Culver Boulevard down to one lane instead of four, and the same again at Manchester where it meets up with Culver… …It’s basically Nickerson to Vista Del Mar. They are going to reduce that down to one lane. Construction also. Then Manchester from Culver – I mean, [Pershing] to Manchester to Culver down to one lane. Those things combine…

Section 4.2, Cumulative Impacts

A cumulative projects list was compiled in order to conduct the cumulative impacts analysis for the Draft EIR. To compile the list, the City of Los Angeles and the City of El Segundo were contacted for a list of current and planned projects within their respective jurisdictions. The cumulative projects list is limited to projects that are considered reasonably foreseeable because applications have been submitted, permits have been issued, or a project is under construction. The Safe Streets for Playa del Rey Initiative was not included in the list of foreseeable projects in the study area and therefore was not included in the cumulative impact analysis in the Draft EIR. LADOT has announced a plan to revert to the previous lane configuration, effective August 21, 2017. Therefore, there will not be a cumulative impact on traffic with the proposed Project.




Section Response

Curtis Cash CC4

Since you guys are going to be trenching all the way down Imperial Highway to the beach, that's going to at least take up one lane. There's only a two-lane road going in that direction. So that means all the traffic's going to be funneled into one lane. That's going to be a lot of traffic – This [cable construction] is going right down the middle of the road? Is it going to the side? Where is it going to be trenched?

Section 3.14, Traffic and Transportation

Draft EIR Section 3.14, Traffic and Transportation, assesses potential impacts on traffic congestion in the Project area as a result of Project construction activities. As discussed in that section, the terrestrial conduit would be installed in the shoulder where possible. Where a shoulder area is not available, construction activities could encroach upon one lane of traffic. A mitigation measure (MM TR-1) has been applied that requires the Applicant to restrict construction on arterial and collector roads to off-peak hours, reducing impacts on congestion. The Draft EIR finds impacts on the traffic capacity of roads in the Project area to be less than significant with mitigation.

Curtis Cash CC5

What do you think the duration of that’s [trenching] going to be so we have an idea of – that trenching – just I am talking about the trenching aspect all the way to the beach.


Draft EIR Section 2.0, Project Description, provides an overview of the overall expected duration of work as well as the estimated pace of terrestrial construction based on the construction technique. For sections of the route that would be installed using open-cut trenching, work would proceed at an estimated 500 feet per day. For sections to be installed via horizontal directional drilling (HDD) (e.g., sections of the route parallel to South Marine Avenue on Dockweiler State Beach), work would proceed at an estimated 100 feet per day. The full terrestrial conduit system has been conservatively estimated to require 5 months for construction.

Curtis Cash CC6

I guess my question is you probably talked to the City Council in El Segundo about this project, no?

N/A The Applicant has engaged both the City of Los Angeles and the City of El Segundo regarding the proposed Project, and will be submitting permits for all work in the respective jurisdictions.




Section Response

Curtis Cash CC7

I have been involved with some terrestrial fiber optic laying. And they have like a primary conduit with innerduct in between that they can occasionally put a new fiber in or repair it. Is that possible with [this project?]

N/A As described in Draft EIR Section 2.0, Project Description, the terrestrial conduit system would include four ducts (one for each horizontal bore), one of which would be in service. Each duct would house three sub-ducts for the fiber-optic, power, and ground cables.

Curtis Cash CC8

Why wouldn’t you put them all four of [the planned subsea cable routes] together and our exclusion zone would be much narrower?


Each subsea cable system is engineered through a detailed desktop analysis and a cable route survey in order to identify a route that is feasible to install, avoids hazards and features, and avoids environmental impacts to the extent possible. Additionally, the separation between the routes supports an objective of the Project to increase diversity of telecommunication pathways between the Los Angeles region U.S. and the Asia-Pacific region. The two additional cable systems that could land at the Los Angeles Cable Hub as well as the remainder of the Trans-Pacific Cable Segment have not yet been planned. Therefore, the cable routes are not discussed in the Draft EIR.

Mrs. Maggioni MM1

What’s the useful life of the project, and what are you going to do afterwards?


As described in Draft EIR Section 2.0, Project Description, the Project’s life expectancy is approximately 25 years. In accordance with standard permit conditions, prior to taking the cable out-of-service or the expiration of the City’s entitlement, the Applicant would advise the City, the California Coastal Commission (CCC), and any other agencies with jurisdiction over the cable of the status and proposed disposition of the inactive cable. Similarly, the disposition of installed infrastructure would be considered at the time of retirement.




Section Response

Rusti Gioiosa RG1

Really in the letter that was general and sent out, it really does not explain what it is, why it’s happening, who is going it, areas impacted other than starting at Dockweiler Beach. Talked about noise and pollution and so forth. As homeowners, we are here representing our condominium association to find out exactly what’s transpiring, when is it starting, duration, just the generality of the project. I just want to know who’s doing this project…Which is for communications?... And purpose of the cable?... So it’s for internet?

Section 1.0, Introduction Section 2.0, Project Description

A Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIR was mailed to owners of properties within 500 feet of the proposed Project, as well as to interested parties identified by the Lead Agency, and published in the local newspaper. The NOA identified the physical and electronic locations to access the full Draft EIR, and notified recipients of the date and time of the public meeting to provide comments in person. The Draft EIR was publicly circulated for comment for 45 calendar days. Draft EIR Section 2.0, Project Description, provides an overview of the Project objectives, components, construction activities, and a provisional construction schedule. The Project Applicant is Tyco Electronics Subsea Communications LLC (TE SubCom). The objectives of the Project are to install a fiber optic cable landing site that would accommodate up to four (4) trans-Pacific subsea fiber-optic telecommunication cable systems and to install one of the cable systems (Phase I) to enhance telecommunications capacity between the Asia-Pacific region and mainland U.S. (Los Angeles region).




Section Response

Rusti Gioiosa RG2

When’s the project starting?...And then the duration? At least the part where it’s going to impact people that are close to Dockweiler…


Draft EIR Section 2.0, Project Description, provides a provisional timeline for Project construction, by activity. Construction of the terrestrial conduit is planned to commence in January 2018. Working within the proscribed working hours for each jurisdiction, construction of the full terrestrial conduit from the beach to the cable station is anticipated to take approximately 5 months. However, since construction would move along the proposed route, each section of the route would be impacted for a much shorter duration of time. Conduit construction via open trenching is estimated to progress at 500 feet per day.

Rusti Gioiosa RG3

And then it spoke specifically about pollution. So, what type of pollution are you anticipating? As you know, we are by LAX so we already have a lot of pollution. And having additional pollution on top of that isn’t something anybody with children or senior citizens or anybody – We are really concerned about that aspect of the project.

Section 3.3, Air Quality

The Draft EIR did not find any significant sources of impact related to pollution from the Project, with the exception of one criteria air pollutant (NOx). NOx emissions would exceed the maximum daily emissions thresholds set by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) on several days during 3 months of the construction period. The vast majority of NOx emissions associated with the Project (approximately 98% during the highest emission days) would be generated by Project vessels offshore. No other criteria air pollutants were found to exceed SCAQMD thresholds during construction or operation of the Project.




Section Response

Rusti Gioiosa RG4

And the noise. What type of noise are you anticipating?... From digging in soft – Is it going to be soft sand you are – or are you going to be doing hard digging on hard surface where you are hitting rock anything like that?

Section 3.12, Noise and Vibration

Noise impacts from terrestrial conduit construction in residential areas of El Segundo are assessed in Draft EIR Section 3.12, Noise and Vibration. The noise calculations conservatively assume that the two noisiest pieces of equipment – the concrete saw and truck movements – would be operating simultaneously. For a further response to the question on noise impacts, please see Comment RG13.

Rusti Gioiosa RG5

…. But you are saying that hazards and gas emissions are significant; right? Or is that less than significant?

Section 3.3, Air Quality Section 3.9, Hazards and Public Safety

The Draft EIR found no significant Project impacts associated with hazards and public safety (Section 3.9, Hazards and Public Safety). Draft EIR Section 3.3, Air Quality, included an analysis of the health risk to sensitive receptors – including residences – from toxic or hazardous air pollutants during Project construction. The analysis found that the health risk from Project activities would be less than significant.




Section Response

Rusti Gioiosa RG6

Why El Segundo? We got a long shoreline in California. Why is it always El Segundo? Because homeowners don’t show up to meetings at 4:00 o’clock? Seriously? Why can’t it go to a different area where we don’t have the fuel from the jets, you know, that we are breathing every day and then putting this on top of it? I don’t understand why El Segundo again.

Section 4.1, Alternatives Analysis

The landing site at Dockweiler State Beach was selected to meet Project objectives, including adding direct telecommunications links between the mainland U.S. (Los Angeles region) and the Asia-Pacific region, and increasing the reliability and diversity of telecommunication pathways between the two regions. In accordance with Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, Section 4.1 of the Draft EIR provides an analysis of alternatives to the proposed Project. The alternatives considered include alternate landing locations, data center and terrestrial route alternatives, alternative technical options, alternative project sequencing, and a No Project alternative. Several alternative landing locations in the greater Los Angeles area were considered and eliminated from further analysis because they would not be feasible, they would not achieve most of the Project objectives, or they would not reduce or avoid significant impacts of the proposed Project. Additional detail can be found in Draft EIR Section 4.1, Alternatives Analysis.

Rusti Gioiosa RG7

You are saying that the air quality impacted here is not going to impact anybody’s health?


Draft EIR Section 3.3, Air Quality, included an analysis of the health risk to sensitive receptors – including residences – from toxic or hazardous air pollutants during Project construction. The analysis found that the health risk from Project activities would be less than significant.

Rusti Gioiosa RG8

Did the City of El Segundo already sign off on this?

Section 1.0, Introduction

The proposed Project has not yet been approved by the City of El Segundo or the City of Los Angeles. The purpose of the EIR is to inform decision makers and the general public of potential environmental impacts that could result from the Project.




Section Response

Rusti Gioiosa RG9

Dockweiler. Where in El Segundo? It’s not all of Dockweiler, is it?


Draft EIR Section 2.0, Project Description, includes a map and description of the Project location at Dockweiler State Beach. The construction area for the cable landing site would temporarily occupy the northeast corner of a parking lot at Dockweiler State Beach. The terrestrial conduit would be installed parallel to South Marine Avenue on Dockweiler State Beach from the landing site to Imperial Highway. There would be no permanent above-ground infrastructure associated with the Project.

Rusti Gioiosa RG10

[REGARDING INIVATIONS TO THE PREVIOUS SCOPING MEETING:] Are they residents or business owners or city workers? This is ours too?

Appendix A The City published the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this EIR and an Initial Study for the Project on October 13, 2016. At that time, the NOP was also distributed to responsible state agencies through the State Clearinghouse and mailed to owners of properties within 500 feet of the proposed Project, as well as to interested parties identified by the Lead Agency. The NOP (included as Appendix A in the Draft EIR), provided formal notice of the opportunity to comment in writing and/or person at the public scoping meeting, which was held at 6 p.m. on October 25, 2016, at the Westchester Community Room.

Rusti Gioiosa RG11

So, the traffic will be significant, then, with all the trucks going in and out? And this is the route? [POINTING TO MAP]

Section 3.14, Traffic and Transportation

As described in Draft EIR Section 3.14, Traffic and Transportation, Mitigation Measure MM TR-1 requires the Project to restrict construction on arterial or collector roads to off-peak hours (i.e., between morning and afternoon peak hours). With this and other Applicant measures in place, analysis in the Draft EIR determined that Project impacts on traffic and congestion would be less than significant with mitigation.




Section Response

Rusti Gioiosa RG12

[Will this be on the side] of Imperial Avenue? That’s our street. Seriously, on Imperial Avenue, what about the homes that are there?

The location within the roadway of the terrestrial conduit installation would be determined by the Applicant in consultation with the relevant authorities, including the City of El Segundo. Considerations would include, for example, avoidance of existing subsurface infrastructure and reduction of traffic impacts. In general, the terrestrial conduit would be installed in the road shoulder, where possible, in order to reduce impacts on traffic and transportation.

Rusti Gioiosa RG13

We [Condo owners] on Imperial Avenue near Acacia Park] are going to get the noise you are saying from the trenching?

Section 3.12, Noise

Noise impacts from terrestrial conduit construction in residential areas of El Segundo are assessed in Draft EIR Section 3.12, Noise and Vibration. The analysis found that Project construction activities would temporarily exceed applicable noise thresholds within a 410-foot radius of construction equipment along Imperial Avenue. Conduit construction would proceed at a pace of approximately 500 feet per day. Therefore, impacts on receptors along a given section of the route would be limited to a few days. Construction activity for the terrestrial conduit system would occur within the applicable work hours in the City of El Segundo. A detailed analysis of existing noise levels and estimated noise levels associated with Project construction is provided in Draft EIR Section 3.12, Noise and Vibration.




Section Response

Mr. Pujari MP1

My question is that how deep underneath to put the cable? What is the depth?... My question is that when you remove the soil you are disturbing the soil condition so, that will be a situation where you are going to remove pollutant (inaudible) it’s possible (inaudible) when you toss it around, it’s in our system.

Section 3.9, Hazards and Public Safety. Section 3.10, Water and Hydrology

The terrestrial conduit system would be installed approximately 48 inches (1.2 meters) below the surface. As discussed in Draft EIR Section 3.9, Hazards and Public Safety, the Project would not cross any known hazardous sites, and would not result in any significant impacts associated with hazardous materials. Draft EIR Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, assesses potential impacts on surface water quality, including impacts resulting from temporary removal of the existing paved surface, resulting in exposure of soils. Analysis in the Draft EIR finds that with implementation of standard best practices and compliance with applicable regulations, Project impacts on surface water quality would be less than significant.

Mr. Pujari MP2

How long is the cable and what do they do this project?


The marine portion of the proposed Pacific Light Cable Network (PLCN) cable system would be installed from the landing site at Dockweiler State Beach, across the Pacific Ocean, to Hong Kong. A second subsea cable, the Trans-Pacific Cable Segment, would be installed at the same landing site and would terminate 3.4 nautical miles (6 kilometers) from shore to be connected to a complete system at a future date. The terrestrial conduit system would connect the beach manholes at the cable landing site to a data center in El Segundo, approximately 3.7 miles away. Draft EIR Section 2.0, Project Description, provides more detail on the Project objective, timing, and components.




Section Response

Mr. Pujari MP3

Is somebody going to document it when you do this job [removing the substrate and burying this and covering it up], somebody take samples to determine that they [water quality requirements] are [met]?

Section 3.10, Water and Hydrology

The permits obtained by the Project for construction would include water quality monitoring requirements. The specific permit conditions have not been determined yet, but it is assumed in the Draft EIR that these would be consistent with standard measures for construction in the area.

Mr. Pujari MP4

How deep is the cable? It’s going across the Pacific Ocean? How deep under the substrate?


As described in Draft EIR Section 2.0, Project Description, the marine cables would be buried in soft sediments to a depth of 3 feet (approximately 1 meter) where feasible in water depths less than 3,937 feet (1,200 meters). In areas of hard bottom, the cable would be surface-laid with only enough slack to allow the cable to conform to the seabed.

Erin Oderlin EO1

We notice that there is four SubCom cables in this Draft EIR. When will the other two be installed? So you have a date for that?...Just leave it open to install more if needed?... That would be laid along the – It would expand the exclusion zone offshore but it [other two SubCom cables] would be laid along the same route?


The proposed Project assessed in the Draft EIR is comprised of Phase I of the Los Angeles Trans-Pacific Telecommunications Hub. This includes installation of the Pacific Light Cable Network (PLCN) subsea telecommunication cable system, a second marine cable “segment,” and construction of associated infrastructure. Future phases would include installation and operation of a subsea cable system to complete the Trans-Pacific Cable Segment (Phase II), and two additional cable systems (Phases III and IV), respectively. These future cable systems are unidentified at this time, and do not have a date associated with installation. Installation of the other cable systems would expand the total exclusion zone (i.e. the area around the cable within which seabed disturbance is restricted), as each cable system would have an exclusion zone applied to its marine route, to protect the cable from accidental damage.




Section Response

Mr. Jacobson (1) MJ1

With the flexibility of this project they will probably just go [trench] to be six feet [below the surface] or so?


The terrestrial conduit system would be installed approximately 48 inches (1.2 meters) below the surface. Upon exiting the marine bore pipes, the subsea cables would be buried in soft sediments to a depth of 3 feet (approximately 1 meter) where feasible in water depths less than 3,937 feet (1,200 meters). For more detail on marine and terrestrial construction, please see Draft EIR Section 2.0, Project Description.

Mr. Jacobson (1) MJ2


Comment noted.

Mr. Pujari (2) MP1

It’s like once it’s done they have to replace the whole thing [fiber optic cable; if damaged]?


Once installed, the cable systems will not require routine maintenance. Should the marine cable be damaged – for instance, by anchors or fishing gear -the location of the interruption can typically be pinpointed through the use of low-frequency electroding. The means for repairing the damage would be determined based on the depth of water and whether or not it is buried at that location. Only the damaged section of the cable would need to be repaired. Cable repair is discussed further in Draft EIR section 2.0, Project Description.

Notes:

1. Mr. Jacobson is incorrectly identified in the transcript (pages 35 onward) as Mr. Cash. The comment table and numbers have been adapted to reflect the correct speaker designation.

2. Mr. Pujari is incorrectly identified in the transcript as Mr. Pratt on page 32. The comment table and numbers have been adapted to reflect the correct speaker designation.

City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering 3.0 Clarifications and Modifications


3.0 CLARIFICATIONS AND MODIFICATIONS

This section presents substantive revisions to the Draft EIR that were made in response to comments received during the public review period. No clarifications or modifications have been made to the Draft EIR that would add a new significant unmitigated impact or a substantial increase in the severity of an impact already analyzed. This section is organized into sections that correspond to the section headings in the Draft EIR and contains a list of the modifications that were made to these sections. Changes to the text are shown with deletions struck and additions underlined.

The Draft EIR sections that include modifications are as follows:

• Section 2.0, Project Description

• Section 3.3, Air Quality

• Section 3.5, Marine Biological Resources

• Section 3.9, Hazards and Public Safety

• Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality

• Section 3.11, Land Use and Recreation

• Section 7.0, References




Section 2.3.1.2, Marine Cable Routes, has been modified as follows:

PLCN Cable

The proposed marine cable routes would cross submerged lands under the City’s jurisdiction of the City of Los Angeles, Department of Recreation and Parks (MHW to 3 nautical miles [nmi] [4.8 km] offshore), through U.S. territorial waters (12 nmi offshore) and across the Pacific Ocean to Hong Kong. Prior to reaching the edge of the outer continental shelf, where water depths drop below approximately 3,937 ft (1,200 m), the proposed route would cross Santa Monica Bay and several offshore basins, ridges, and escarpments.

Trans-Pacific Cable Segment

The Trans-Pacific Cable Segment would be installed across submerged lands under the City’s jurisdiction of the City of Los Angeles, Department of Recreation and Parks (MHW to 3.4 nmi [6.3 km] offshore), using the same method described for the PLCN cable. The end of the segment would be connected to a short piece of rope approximately 328 ft (~ 100m) long and a clump anchor. The end of the cable segment would be buried by a ROV and would not be exposed on the seabed.



The following section has been added to Section 2.0, Project Description:

Section 2.8, Permits and Approvals

Table 2-7 provides a summary of permissions and approvals required from public agencies for the proposed Project.

Table 2-7: Project Approvals

Agency Approval Status U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Los Angeles District

Nationwide Permit 12 (Utility Lines) In Progress

Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)

CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certificate In Progress

California Coastal Commission (CCC)

Coastal Development Permit Federal Consistency Certification

In Progress

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Encroachment Permit In Progress

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit

To be obtained prior to construction

City of Los Angeles

Easements (submerged land and upland parcel) Local Coastal Development Permit Excavation Permit

In Progress

Los Angeles County Right-of-Entry Permit Licensing Agreement

In Progress

City of El Segundo Encroachment Permit Licensing Agreement

In Progress




The following modifications have been made within Section 3.3.3.3, Impacts and Mitigation Measures.

MM AIR-1: Emission Reduction Measures.

The maximum daily emissions scenarios for construction activities show that the Project could exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for NOx. The following mitigation measures focus on reducing emissions from marine activity and terrestrial construction equipment. The Project shall apply the applicable standard mitigations for emission reduction:

• Develop and implement a comprehensive inspection and maintenance program for Project vessels, as well as heavy-duty, land-based equipment and trucks; and

• Use support vessels that meet the Tier 2 emission requirements or better, if available (IMO 2008). The Applicant has confirmed the cable ships meet the Tier 2 requirements.

The Applicant would reduce cable vessel emissions to the extent possible through compliance with vessel speed reduction requirements, and through the use of low-sulfur marine diesel fuel. Implementation of MM AIR-1 would further reduce Project emissions, but the daily maximum would still remain above the applicable threshold on several days during Project construction and installation. Emission factor data suggest that NOx may be reduced by about 10 percent when switching from Tier 1 to Tier 2 engines (Port of Los Angeles 2014). Air emissions would be short-term and associated only with Project construction and installation activities, and applicable requirements would be applied. However, the emissions are expected to exceed daily maximums during a portion of the construction period and therefore regional air quality impacts during construction are considered significant and unavoidable.




The following modifications have been made within Section 3.5.3.3, Impacts and Mitigation Measures; Impacts on Candidate, Sensitive, or Special-Status Species; MM MBIO-1:

MM MBIO-1: Prepare and Implement Marine Wildlife Monitoring and Contingency Plan (MWMCP).

The Applicant shall prepare and implement a MWMCP that shall apply to cable installation and repair activities within the Project area, and consist of the following elements, procedures, and response actions:

• Awareness training for Project vessel crew that includes identification of common marine wildlife and avoidance procedures included in the MWMCP for Project activities.

• Provision of two qualified shipboard marine mammal observers to conduct observations during cable installation activity. The MWMCP shall include qualifications of and required equipment for the observers.

• Project-specific monitoring procedures, including recommended avoidance radii and stop-work authority for the observers.

• Project-specific control measures for Project vessels (including support boats) and actions to be undertaken when marine wildlife is present, such as reduced vessel speeds or suspended operations.

• Reporting requirements and procedures for wildlife sightings and /or contact, and post-installation reporting. The MWMCP shall also identify the resource agencies that are to be contacted in case of marine wildlife incidents and that will receive reports at the conclusion of Project installation.

• The MWMCP shall be submitted to the City of Los Angeles and CCC at least 60 days prior to the start of marine installation activities for review.


MM MBIO-2: Burial Verification Report and Survey.

Cable Installation Report. After cable installation has been completed, the Applicant shall submit a cable installation report to the City of Los Angeles documenting the Project activities and as-laid cable condition within 60 days of cable installation. The report is to include the burial status of the cable recorded during the installation and PLIB, and identify areas where the cable is not buried, including suspended cable greater than 3 ft (1 m) above the seafloor.



Information on the as-laid cable alignment shall also be provided to the CCC, California State Lands Commission, and the NOAA Hydrographic Service.

Burial Verification Survey(s). Five years after cable installation, the cable shall be surveyed from the HDD bore pipe seaward terminus to the end of the buried area (estimated at 3,937 ft [1,200 m] water depth) to verify that the cable has remained buried consistent with the as-built cable installation report. A qualified party using an ROV equipped with video capability shall conduct the survey. Within 30 days of survey completion, the Applicant shall submit a report to the appropriate regulatory agencies describing the results of the survey and a copy of the video recorded during the cable survey. The video documentation shall include a display that identifies the date, time, position, water depth, and heading of the ROV. If the survey shows that a buried segment(s) of a cable is no longer buried, the Applicant Responsible Party shall, within 30 days of survey completion, submit a plan to the appropriate regulatory agencies for approval to re-bury those cable segments. Upon approval of the plan, the Applicant shall implement the plan in accordance with the time schedule specified therein.

Based on the results of the burial verification survey, the City of Los Angeles and CCC would determine whether subsequent surveys are necessary, and at what interval. Burial verification surveys conducted on other fiber optic cable projects have generally not observed changes in installed cable positions or burial status, as documented in multiple cycles of burial verification surveys for cables systems installed in California since 2000 (CCC 2016). Therefore, the need for routine burial inspection surveys to verify burial status would be reviewed by City of Los Angeles and CCC and determined from the findings of the five-year survey.


MM MBIO-3: Fishing Gear Retrieval.

In the event that fishermen snag and sacrifice gear on a Project cable, or any other types of entanglement occur on a Project cable within the Project area, the Applicant shall use all feasible measures to retrieve the fishing gear or object, if doing so would not pose a risk to the operability of the cable or safety of the vessel and crew attempting to retrieve the snagged or sacrificed gear. The Applicant shall notify the appropriate regulatory agencies within 48 hours of its knowledge of gear loss or other cable entanglement. Retrieval efforts shall occur no later than six weeks after discovering or receiving notice of the incident, unless otherwise authorized by the regulatory agencies. If full removal of gear is not feasible, the Applicant shall remove as much gear as practicable to minimize harm to wildlife (e.g., fishes, birds, and marine mammals). Within two weeks of completing the recovery operation, the Applicant shall submit to the regulatory agencies a report describing (a) the nature



of and location of the entanglement (with a map) and (b) the retrieval method used for removing the entangled gear or object or the method used for minimizing harm to wildlife if gear retrieval proves infeasible.

The following modifications have been made within Section 3.5.3.3, Impacts and Mitigation Measures; Impacts on Sensitive Natural Community or Habitat; Impact MBIO-7 and associated mitigation measures:

Impact MBIO-7: The Project could impact hard bottom communities that support special-status marine wildlife, kelp forests, and deep-sea corals and sponges.

Cable installation in hard bottom areas would have direct impacts on hard bottom habitats that would be localized and generally limited to the area proportional to the width of the cable. (approximately 3 inches).

As described in Section 3.5.1.3 as well as recent EIRs for similar projects in the area, low-relief, hard-bottom habitat is often subject to higher turbidity and cycles of frequent burial by sand and exposure typically resulting in lower species diversity and abundances. These harsher physical conditions result in an associated biological community that is often more ephemeral and dominated by organisms that are more tolerant of high turbidity and sand scouring, or are able to grow fast enough to avoid complete burial. Typical taxa observed in recent ROV habitat and macrobenthic taxa surveys for fiber-optic cable routes in California include some cup corals, puffball and other similar sponges, gorgonian corals, and some species of anemones, such as Stomphia spp. and Urticina spp. (City of Hermosa Beach 2016).

Cable route and post-lay surveys conducted in California coastal waters observed minimal impacts on hard bottom communities. AMS (2008) reported during their survey of the AT&T Asia-America Gateway S-5 cable, which ran parallel to previously laid fiber-optic cables in low relief hard substrate, that no noticeable impacts associated with previously laid cables in the area were detectable. Summaries from other surveys indicated large erect sponges were observed growing on or over exposed cables, or small-localized movements up to 4 inches (10 centimeter) in width were observed (City of Hermosa Beach 2016).

The Project includes the following features that avoid or reduce hard bottom impacts:

• Route planning, including a cable route survey for the PLCN and cable segment alignments, adjusted routing to maximize soft bottom substrate where the cables could be buried, and avoided areas identified as hard bottom substrate types where feasible.

• PLGR would be conducted in soft bottom areas, and would avoid areas identified in the route survey as being hard bottom.



• Although the substrate near the bore exits is soft bottom, the cable ship would not anchor during cable installation.

Table 3.5-5 provides an estimate of hard bottom that would be disturbed by the PLCN cable and Trans-Pacific Cable Segment. The estimates of linear distance are based on substrates observed during the marine route survey (see Tables 3.5-1 and 3.5-2), and were refined through subsequent analysis of geotechnical data, Cone Penetration Tests (CPTs), and core samples (TE SubCom 2017). The area disturbed is based on cable width, using the estimation approach used by the CCC for calculating hard bottom mitigation (CCC 2016a).

Table 3.5-5: Estimated Hard Bottom Disturbance Area

PLCN Cable Trans-Pacific Cable Segment Total

Total cable length in Project area (ft)a 748,942 18,957 767,899

Estimated length crossing hard bottom (ft)b 265,101 20,548 608 265,709 21,156

Estimated hard bottom disturbance area (ft2)c 132,550 5,114 304 152 132,854 5,266

Notes: a Estimates are based on the 2016 route surveys conducted by the Applicant for seafloor in water depths less than 3,937 ft (1,200 m). b Hard bottom estimates include the rock and subcropping rock categories observed in the 2016 route survey. Hard bottom estimates were updated in August 2017 after subsequent analysis of survey data (TE SubCom 2017). c Disturbance area is estimated using the linear distance multiplied by twice the width of the cable, or 63 inches total impact width, consistent with the other recent subsea cable projects in the area.

The Project incorporates measures to avoid hard bottom communities to the greatest extent feasible, and the potential area of disturbance has been estimated based on the route survey data (TE SubCom 2016a and b). The following mitigation measures are proposed to quantify and mitigate impacts on hard bottom that could not be avoided during Project development and design.

MM MBIO-6: Post-Lay Hard Bottom Report.

Within 60 days of completion of cable installation, the Applicant shall submit to the City of Los Angeles and CCC a report quantifying the extent of hard bottom substrate that was impacted by cable installation. The report, which may be submitted with the Cable Installation Report (see MM MBIO-2), would use data collected during cable installation and/or post-lay burial operations to determine areas where the cable is in direct contact with or is suspended above hard bottom substrate. The report shall quantify the extent of exposed rocky substrate, out to the edge of the outer continental shelf (3,937 ft [1,200 m] water depth contour, or “isobath”).



MM MBIO-7: Hard Bottom Mitigation Fee.

The Applicant shall compensate for all Project-related impacts on hard bottom habitat through payment of a compensatory hard bottom mitigation fee using a methodology applied to recent California fiber optic cable projects by the CCC (CCC 2016a). The fees are used to remove derelict fishing gear and other marine debris from waters in the SCB, and implemented pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement by and between the CCC and the Regents of the University of California on behalf of the UC Davis Wildlife Health Center’s California Lost Fishing Gear Recovery Project.

The mitigation fee will be based on methodology developed by the CCC and applied in recent fiber optic cable projects in California (CCC 2016a). Hard bottom impacts will be quantified for water depths up to 3,937 ft (1,200 m) based on the results of the hard bottom report (MM MBIO-6) and in consultation with the CCC. The fee shall be paid to the UC Davis Wildlife Center within 30 calendar days of the approval of the results of the hard bottom report (MM MBIO-6) by the City of Los Angeles and CCC. The Applicant Responsible Party shall provide evidence of this payment to the City of Los Angeles and CCC within the same timeframe.



Section 3.9, Hazards and Public Safety

Section 3.9.3.3, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, has been modified as follows:

Impact HAZ-4: Marine Project activities could increase the likelihood of human health hazards.

The proposed cable routes were engineered through a process that identifies and avoids marine and nearshore hazards and features (e.g., outfalls, dumping grounds, shipwrecks, anchorage areas, fishing and protected areas, and other restricted areas). As a result, the cable routes avoid chemical waste areas where installation could disturb contaminated sediments (see Figure 3.9-4). According to routine sampling undertaken by the Hyperion Water Reclamation Plant, sediments in the nearshore Project vicinity are a mix clay, silt, sand, and gravel, and vary in concentrations of organic carbon, organic nitrogen, DDTs and PCBs (CLAEMD 2016). Levels of DDTs and PCBs in sediment samples ranged from undetected to 126.4 ug/kg and 226.2 ug/kg, respectively (CLAEMD 2016). From the bore pipe exits seaward, the Project would temporarily disturb sediments during cable burial. Disturbances would be localized to the area around the cable route, and most sediments would settle back into place. As discussed in Section 2.0, Project Description, a sea plow would be used to bury the cable in soft sediments to the desired depth (approximately 3 ft). The plow would create a furrow approximately 1.5 ft [0.46 m] wide and feed the cable to the bottom of the furrow. The sediments displaced during cable burial would immediately settle back into the opening as the sidewalls of the furrow collapse. Sediments at the bottom of the furrow would not be elevated to the surface through mixing or jetting. The Applicant has confirmed that a jetting assembly would not be necessary to fluidize sediment in the Project area; therefore, compressed air would not be used in the cable burial process, reducing sediment disturbance.

Under baseline conditions, sediment disturbance at the seabed surface is subject to naturally occurring biological and physical mixing processes (i.e., bioturbation) that continuously re-suspend and contribute to vertical transport of sediment (Niedoroda et al. 1996; USGS 1998). Bay et al. (2003) conclude that bioturbation in the Santa Monica Bay could mix the sedimentation record up to 40 years. Therefore, cable burial would not significantly increase sediment dispersion beyond what is considered natural variation in the Bay.

Resuspension and redistribution of sediments during cable burial would be highest on the surface of the sea floor at first contact of the footings of the sea plow and the plow element penetrating the soft-bottom sediment. Studies conducted in the Santa Monica Bay by the USGS’s Coastal and Marine Group in coordination with the Southern California Water Research Project and City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Sanitation conclude that contamination levels associated with historical discharges to the Bay are lowest in surface level sediments (Greenstein et al. 2000). The most recent findings of the Hyperion Water Reclamation Plant’s annual environmental sampling effort are consistent with these findings; grab samples taken of surface level



sediments in the area of the proposed cable routes (Figure 3.9-5) in 2015 indicate that contaminant levels in these sediments do not exceed the Effects Range Medium for metals, PCBs, or DDT (see Table 3.9-4) (Hyperion Water Reclamation Plant 2015).

The Effects Range Medium, as published in NOAA’s Quick Screen Reference Table for Organics (“SQUIRT Table”), is defined as “Concentration above which effects are frequently or always observed among most species of biota” (NOAA 2004; Peters et al. 1998). Therefore, minimal and short-term resuspension of sediment well below the Effects Range Medium levels as a result of cable installation would not be expected to impact biota or human health.

Created By: GF Date: 7/28/2017 Project: 0332596

³

Notes:100 meter contoursSource:Hyperion 2015

Figure 3.9-5Hyperion Plant Sampling

Locations along Proposed Cable RouteLos Angeles Trans-Pacific

Telecommunications Cable HubEnvironmental Resources Managementwww.erm.comERM

!

!!

!

!

!@

-100

-200

-300

FA18FA19

FB18

FB19

B6

³Pacific Ocean

LegendDominant Substrate

ClaySandRockSubcropping Rock

!@ Cable Landing SitePLCN Cable RouteTrans-Pacific Cable Segment

SMB Benthic Sampling Sites! Fixed! Random

0 0.5 1Nautical Miles

0 1.5 3Kilometers



Table 3.9-4: 2015 Sediment Grab Sample Results in the Vicinity of the Proposed Cable Routes

Sampling Location

Sample Date Constituent Method Units Result

Dry Wt.

Effects Range Low

Effects Range

Medium SMB

OFFSHORE-B6

7/15/2015 ARSENIC EPA 6010B mg/kg 0.3 8.2 70

SMB OFFSHORE-

B6 7/15/2015 CADMIUM EPA

6010B mg/kg 1.91 1.2 9.6

SMB OFFSHORE-

B6 7/15/2015 CHROMIUM EPA

6010B mg/kg 34.1 81 370

SMB OFFSHORE-

B6 7/15/2015 COPPER EPA

6010B mg/kg 9.87 34 270

SMB OFFSHORE-

B6 7/15/2015 LEAD EPA

6010B mg/kg 9.87 46.7 218

SMB OFFSHORE-

B6 7/15/2015 MERCURY EPA

7471A mg/kg 0.184 0.15 0.71

SMB OFFSHORE-

B6 7/15/2015 NICKEL EPA

6010B mg/kg 12.6 20.9 51.6

SMB OFFSHORE-

B6 7/15/2015 ZINC EPA

6010B mg/kg 43.9 150 410

SMB OFFSHORE-

B6 7/15/2015 Total DDTs EPA 8081 ug/kg 37.8 1.58 46.1

SMB OFFSHORE-

B6 7/15/2015 Total PCBs EPA 8082 ug/kg 71.3 22.7 180

SMB OFFSHORE-

FA18 7/16/2015 ARSENIC EPA

6010B mg/kg 3.25 8.2 70

SMB OFFSHORE-

FA18 7/16/2015 CADMIUM EPA

6010B mg/kg 1.45 1.2 9.6

SMB OFFSHORE-

FA18 7/16/2015 CHROMIUM EPA

6010B mg/kg 33.7 81 370

SMB OFFSHORE-

FA18 7/16/2015 COPPER EPA

6010B mg/kg 10.1 34 270

SMB OFFSHORE-

FA18 7/16/2015 LEAD EPA

6010B mg/kg 18.5 46.7 218



Sampling Location


Dry Wt.

Effects Range Low

Effects Range

Medium SMB

OFFSHORE-FA18

7/16/2015 MERCURY EPA 7471A mg/kg 0.159 0.15 0.71

SMB OFFSHORE-

FA18 7/16/2015 NICKEL EPA

6010B mg/kg 12.2 20.9 51.6

SMB OFFSHORE-

FA18 7/16/2015 ZINC EPA

6010B mg/kg 48.4 150 410

SMB OFFSHORE-

FA18 7/16/2015 Total DDTs EPA 8081 ug/kg 36.97 1.58 46.1

SMB OFFSHORE-

FA18 7/16/2015 Total PCBs EPA 8082 ug/kg 59.9 22.7 180

SMB OFFSHORE-

FA19 7/14/2015 ARSENIC EPA

6010B mg/kg 0.71 8.2 70

SMB OFFSHORE-

FA19 7/14/2015 CADMIUM EPA

6010B mg/kg 1.54 1.2 9.6

SMB OFFSHORE-

FA19 7/14/2015 CHROMIUM EPA

6010B mg/kg 36.7 81 370

SMB OFFSHORE-

FA19 7/14/2015 COPPER EPA

6010B mg/kg 16.7 34 270

SMB OFFSHORE-

FA19 7/14/2015 LEAD EPA

6010B mg/kg 9.43 46.7 218

SMB OFFSHORE-

FA19 7/14/2015 MERCURY EPA

7471A mg/kg 0.1391 0.15 0.71

SMB OFFSHORE-

FA19 7/14/2015 NICKEL EPA

6010B mg/kg 10.3 20.9 51.6

SMB OFFSHORE-

FA19 7/14/2015 ZINC EPA

6010B mg/kg 42.6 150 410

SMB OFFSHORE-

FA19 7/14/2015 Total DDTs EPA 8081 ug/kg 20.77 1.58 46.1

SMB OFFSHORE-

FA19 7/14/2015 Total PCBs EPA 8082 ug/kg 80.2 22.7 180

SMB OFFSHORE-

FB18 7/16/2015 ARSENIC EPA

6010B mg/kg 1.98 8.2 70



Sampling Location


Dry Wt.

Effects Range Low

Effects Range

Medium SMB

OFFSHORE-FB18

7/16/2015 CADMIUM EPA 6010B mg/kg 0.95 1.2 9.6

SMB OFFSHORE-

FB18 7/16/2015 CHROMIUM EPA

6010B mg/kg 30.8 81 370

SMB OFFSHORE-

FB18 7/16/2015 COPPER EPA

6010B mg/kg 8.93 34 270

SMB OFFSHORE-

FB18 7/16/2015 LEAD EPA

6010B mg/kg 15.18 46.7 218

SMB OFFSHORE-

FB18 7/16/2015 MERCURY EPA

7471A mg/kg 0.1485 0.15 0.71

SMB OFFSHORE-

FB18 7/16/2015 NICKEL EPA

6010B mg/kg 11 20.9 51.6

SMB OFFSHORE-

FB18 7/16/2015 ZINC EPA

6010B mg/kg 42.3 150 410

SMB OFFSHORE-

FB18 7/16/2015 Total DDTs EPA 8081 ug/kg 34.78 1.58 46.1

SMB OFFSHORE-

FB18 7/16/2015 Total PCBs EPA 8082 ug/kg 64.9 22.7 180

SMB OFFSHORE-

FB19 7/14/2015 ARSENIC EPA

6010B mg/kg 0.43 8.2 70

SMB OFFSHORE-

FB19 7/14/2015 CADMIUM EPA

6010B mg/kg 1.13 1.2 9.6

SMB OFFSHORE-

FB19 7/14/2015 CHROMIUM EPA

6010B mg/kg 33 81 370

SMB OFFSHORE-

FB19 7/14/2015 COPPER EPA

6010B mg/kg 12.7 34 270

SMB OFFSHORE-

FB19 7/14/2015 LEAD EPA

6010B mg/kg 8.42 46.7 218

SMB OFFSHORE-

FB19 7/14/2015 MERCURY EPA

7471A mg/kg 0.201 0.15 0.71

SMB OFFSHORE-

FB19 7/14/2015 NICKEL EPA

6010B mg/kg 8.65 20.9 51.6



Sampling Location


Dry Wt.

Effects Range Low

Effects Range

Medium SMB

OFFSHORE-FB19

7/14/2015 ZINC EPA 6010B mg/kg 37.3 150 410

SMB OFFSHORE-

FB19 7/14/2015 Total DDTs EPA 8081 ug/kg 21.73 1.58 46.1

SMB OFFSHORE-

FB19 7/14/2015 Total PCBs EPA 8082 ug/kg 76.5 22.7 180

Source: Hyperion Water Reclamation Plant 2015 Notes: 1. Effects Range Low = Concentration below which effects are rarely observed or predicted among sensitive life stages and/or species of biota for Sediment Effect Concentrations used to evaluate sediment concentrations of trace elements and synthetic organic compounds. 2. Effects Range Median = Concentration above which effects are frequently or always observed among most species of biota for Sediment Effect Concentrations used to evaluate sediment concentrations of trace elements and synthetic organic compounds.

Finally, due to naturally occurring conditions in the Bay, there is a very low likelihood that the small amount of resuspended sediment during cable installation would reach shore. Cable burial using the sea plow would begin at approximately 1 mile off shore, at the exit points of the marine bores. HDD would be used to construct the marine bores landward of this point, in part to avoid disturbance to sea floor sediment in shallower waters. From the bore exit points to approximately 12 km offshore, soft-bottom sediment is predominantly sand, which has a notably higher settling rate than silt or clay, reducing the time which sediment is suspended in the water column. A study modeling sediment transport in the Santa Monica Bay estimated the settling velocity of sand to be 9.4 millimeters per second as compared to silt/clay at 0.4 millimeters per second (i.e., approximately 23 times faster) (Blaas et al. 2007). Grain size analysis of the sediment samples collected by the Hyperion Plant along the route confirms that sand composition in this area averages approximately 63 percent (Hyperion Water Reclamation Plant 2015). Lastly, oceanographic data collected in the Santa Monica Bay indicates that currents in the Bay travel in an overall northwest direction towards the open ocean and away from the shore (Bay et al. 2003; Ferre´ et al. 2010).

With implementation of route design and planning efforts, the potential for marine cable installation to result in an increased human health risk due to hazardous materials is expected to be less than significant.



Section 3.9.3.4, Summary of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Significance Conclusions, has been modified as follows:

Table 3.9-4 3.9-5 provides a summary of potential impacts on hazards and public safety as a result of the Project.

Table 3.9-4 3.9-5: Summary of Hazards and Public Safety Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Significance Conclusions



Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality

Section 3.10.3.3, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, has been modified as follows:

Impact HWQ-2: Marine Project construction could adversely impact surface water quality by creating pollution, contamination or nuisance, or by causing regulatory standards to be violated

The proposed marine cable routes were engineered through a desktop review and then refined through marine surveys to characterize seabed characteristics and potential hazards along the routes, including areas of known contamination, sensitive habitats, and protected areas. Sediment disturbance and redistribution from cable installation would be short-term and localized, as re-suspended sediments would settle onto the seafloor shortly after disturbance. As discussed in Section 2.0, Project Description, a sea plow would be used to bury the cable in soft sediments to the desired depth (approximately 3 ft). The plow would create a furrow approximately 1.5 ft [0.46 m] wide and feed the cable to the bottom of the furrow. The sediments displaced during cable burial would immediately settle back into the opening as the sidewalls of the furrow collapse. Sediments at the bottom of the furrow would not be elevated to the surface through mixing or jetting. The Applicant has confirmed that a jetting assembly would not be necessary to fluidize sediment in the Project area; therefore, compressed air would not be used in the cable burial process, and sediment disturbance would be reduced.

Under baseline conditions, sediment disturbance at the seabed surface is subject to naturally occurring biological and physical mixing processes (i.e., bioturbation) that continuously re-suspend and contribute to vertical transport of sediment (Niedoroda et al. 1996; USGS 1998). Bay et al. 2003 conclude that bioturbation in the Santa Monica Bay could mix the sedimentation record up to 40 years. Cable burial would not significantly increase sediment dispersion beyond what is considered natural variation in the Bay.

Redistribution of contaminants located within sediments crossed by the subsea cables is likewise not expected to be significant. For a further discussion of this topic, see Section 3.9, Hazards and Public Safety.



Section 3.11, Land Use and Recreation

Section 3.11.1.2, Marine Commercial and Industrial Uses in the Project Area, is modified as follows:

Trawling is not permitted within the fishing closure area. However, trawling for spot prawn and groundfish takes place in deeper waters (i.e., 70 to 150 fathoms) in the vicinity of the proposed PLCN cable route, including trawling by international vessels. Trawling activity in the area consists of “light tackle” trawling, with seabed penetration limited to less than 0.5 m (TE SubCom 2016a) (Garry Richter, SBC/FLC; Personal Communication; February 2, 2017).

Section 3.11.3.3, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, is modified as follows:

As shown on Figure 3.11-2, marine uses in the vicinity of the cable routes in the Santa Monica Bay include the Hyperion Water Reclamation Plant outfalls, recreational and commercial fishing areas, commercial anchorages, and the Pacific Missile Range military practice area. The closest of the Hyperion plant outfalls is located five meters under the seabed at the southern end of Dockweiler State Beach, approximately .88 nmi from the cable segment and 1 nmi from the PLCN cable route.



Section 4.1, Alternatives Analysis

Section 4.1.11, Selection of Environmentally Superior Alternative, has been modified as follows:

For this Project, the No Project Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative because it is the only alternative that reduces avoids significant and unavoidable impacts from short-term air emissions and temporary construction noise to less than significant.



Section 7.0, References

Section 3.4, Terrestrial Biological Resources

State Water Resources Control Board.

---. 2016. Strategic Plan Update 20092008-2012. Adopted September 2, 2008. Accessed: February 2017. Retrieved from: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/hot_topics/strategic_plan/docs/final_draft_strategic_plan_update_090208.pdf

CPAD (California Protected Areas Data). 2016. California Protected Areas Data Portal. CPAD 2016a Holdings. Accessed: December 12, 2016. Retrieved from: http://www.calands.org/

---. 2016. California Protected Areas (CPAD) 2016.


Applied Marine Sciences (AMS). 2008. Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) Biological Characterization Survey of the Asia America Gateway (AAG) S-5 Project Fiber Optic Cable Route Offshore Morro Bay, CA. Prepared for AT&T Corporation. May 2008. As cited in CSLC. 2008. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the AT&T Asia America Gateway Fiber Optic Cable Project. State Clearinghouse No. 2007111029.

AMS (Applied Marine Sciences). 2015. Subtidal Habitats and Associated Macrobenthic and Fish Communities Observed Offshore Coastal California Along Fiber Optic Cable Routes. Prepared for ICF International. May. As cited in City of Hermosa Beach. 2016. Draft EIR Transpacific Fiber-Optic Cables Project. State Clearinghouse No. 2015041004.

Obaza, A. NMFS (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service). 2014. The Importance of Eelgrass. Website. Retrieved from: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/stories/2014/04_11072014_eelgrass_mitigation.html. NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service West Coast Region.

Shirihai, H., and B. Jarrett and G.M. Kirwan. 2006. Whales, Dolphins and Other Marine Mammals of the World. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. p.62-68.

Watters, D.L., M.M. Yoklavich, M.S. Love, and D.M. Schroeder. 2010. Assessing marine debris in deep seafloor habitats off California. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 60: 131-138.

BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 2016. National Lands Conservation System, National Monuments v10. BLM California GeoSpatial Data Downloads. Last modified: 2016. Accessed: September 30, 2016. Retrieved from: https://www.blm.gov/ca/gis/

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2016. NOAA Habitat Conservation: National Marine Fisheries Program. EFH Text Descriptions & GIS Data Inventory. Accessed: November 1, 2016. Retrieved from: http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/newInv/index.html

TE SubCom. 2017. Seabed Interpretation Update. August, 2017.

http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/newInv/index.html



Section 3.6, Cultural Resources

CSLC (California State Lands Commission). 2017. California Shipwrecks. Accessed: January 2017. Retrieved from: http://www.slc.ca.gov/Info/Shipwrecks.html

Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gases

CARB (California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board). 2016a. Advisory to Owners or Operators of Ocean-Going Vessels Visiting California Ports: California Ocean-Going Vessel Fuel Regulation to Remain in Effect Subject to Reevaluation in Two Years. Accessed: March 8, 2017. Retrieved from: https://www.arb.ca.gov/ports/marinevess/vsr/vsr.htm https://www.arb.ca.gov/ports/marinevess/documents/marinenote2016_1.pdf

Section 3.9, Hazards

Bay, S. M., E.Y. Zeng, T.D. Lorenson, K. Tran, and C. Alexander. 2003. Temporal and spatial distributions of contaminants in sediments of Santa Monica Bay, California. Marine Environmental Research 56 (2003) 255-276. Accessed: July 27, 2017. Retrieved from: ftp://ftp.sccwrp.org/pub/download/DOCUMENTS/JournalArticles/401_smb.pdf

Blaas, M., C. Dong, P. Marchesiello, J.C. McWilliams, and K.D. Stolzenbach. 2007. Sediment-transport modeling on Southern California shelves: A ROMS case study. Continental Shelf Research 27 (2007) 832–853. Accessed: July 25, 2017. Retrieved from: ftp://ftp.legos.obs-mip.fr/pub/romsagrif/DATA_ROMS/papers/Blaas_etal_CSR_2007.pdf

CLAEMD (City of Los Angeles Environmental Monitoring Division). 2016. City of Los Angeles’ Environmental Monitoring Division Programs Report (2015 Monitoring Year).

Ferre´, B., C.R. Sherwood, P.L. Wiberg. 2010. Sediment transport on the Palos Verdes shelf, California. Continental Shelf Research (2010) 761-780. Accessed: July 25, 2017. Retrieved from: https://darchive.mblwhoilibrary.org/bitstream/handle/1912/3601/ferre_csr2010.pdf?sequence=1

Greenstein, D.J., S.M. Bay, A.W. Jirik, J.S. Brown, and A. Clark. 2000. Toxicity assessment of sediment cores from Santa Monica Bay. Accessed: July 25, 2017. Retrieved from: http://ftp.sccwrp.org/pub/download/DOCUMENTS/AnnualReports/1999AnnualReport/13_ar13.pdf

Hyperion Water Reclamation Plant. 2015. Santa Monica Bay Annual Receiving Water Monitoring Report 2015. Attached to Email from Stacee Karnya on February 7, 2017.

LACDRP (Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning). 2008. 2004. Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Plan. Accessed: August 31, 2016. Retrieved from: http://planning.lacounty.gov/view/alup/

ftp://ftp.sccwrp.org/pub/download/DOCUMENTS/JournalArticles/401_smb.pdf



Niedoroda, A. W., Swift, D. J. P., Reed, C. W., and Stull, J. K. 1996. Contaminant dispersal on the Palos Verdes continental margin: III. Processes controlling transport, accumulation and re-emergence of DDT-contaminated sediment particles. The Science of the Total Environment, Volume 179, 109–133. January 26, 1996.

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2004. Screening Quick Reference Tables. Accessed: July 25, 2017. Retrieved from: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0720/ML072040354.pdf

Peters, C.A., D. M. Robertson, D. A. Saad, D. J. Sullivan, B. C. Scudder, F. A. Fitzpatrick, K. D. Richards, J. S. Stewart, S. A. Fitzgerald, and B. N. Lenz. 1998. “Water Quality in the Western Lake Michigan Draiages, Wisconsin and Michigan, 1992-95. “U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1156. Accessed: July 25, 2017. Retrieved from: https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1156/

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1998. Distribution and Fate of Contaminated Seafloor Sediment on the Shelf Offshore Los Angeles. Accessed: May 2, 2013. Retrieved from: https://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/socal/pv.pdf

Section 3.10, Hydrology

Bay, S. M., E.Y. Zeng, T.D. Lorenson, K. Tran, and C. Alexander. 2003. Temporal and spatial distributions of contaminants in sediments of Santa Monica Bay, California. Marine Environmental Research 56 (2003) 255-276. Accessed: July 27, 2017. Retrieved from: ftp://ftp.sccwrp.org/pub/download/DOCUMENTS/JournalArticles/401_smb.pdf

Lee, Homa J., Marlene A. Noble, and Jingping Xu. 2003. Sediment Transport and Deposition Processes Near Ocean Outfalls in Southern California. Accessed: October 3, 2016.

Niedoroda, A. W., Swift, D. J. P., Reed, C. W., and Stull, J. K. 1996. Contaminant dispersal on the Palos Verdes continental margin: III. Processes controlling transport, accumulation and re-emergence of DDT-contaminated sediment particles. The Science of the Total Environment Volume, 179, 109–133. January 26, 1996.

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1998. Distribution and Fate of Contaminated Seafloor Sediment on the Shelf Offshore Los Angeles. Accessed: May 2, 2013.Retrieved from: https://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/socal/pv.pdf

Section 3.11, Land Use and Recreation

TE SubCom. 2016a. Desk Top Study – Pacific Light Cable Network (PLCN). April 29, 2016.

ftp://ftp.sccwrp.org/pub/download/DOCUMENTS/JournalArticles/401_smb.pdf



Section 4.0, Alternatives and Cumulative Impacts Analyses

4.1—Alternatives Analysis

AMS (Applied Marine Sciences). 2015. Subtidal Habitats and Associated Macrobenthic and Fish Communities Observed Offshore Coastal California Along Fiber Optic Cable Routes. Prepared for ICF International. May. As cited in City of Hermosa Beach. 2016. Draft EIR Transpacific Fiber-Optic Cables Project. State Clearinghouse No. 2015041004.

4.2 – Cumulative Impacts Analysis

LAWA (Los Angeles World Airways). 2017. 2016. Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for Los Angeles International Airport Landside Access Modernization Program.

Documents

Los Angeles Trans-Pacific Telecommunications Cable Hub