3. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
3.1 Introduction
This section summarizes and compares the environmental advantages and disadvantages of the various project alternatives evaluated in this EIR. The purpose of this analysis is to determine the environmentally superior alternative pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d). This discussion is provided to help the reader understand the major differences in impacts that are anticipated with the project alternatives.
The proposed project, route segment alternatives, and the No Project Alternative would result in significant impacts, some of which cannot be mitigated to levels that are not significant. There are also environmental, policy, and economic tradeoffs associated with the alternatives. A comprehensive alternatives comparison matrix has been developed, which appears in the EIR in Section D.4 as Table D.4-1. In this Table, Class I (significant) and Class II (significant, but mitigable to a level of non-significance) impacts are tabulated in a matrix format allowing easy comparison among the project alternatives (including the proposed project). provided for each of the alternatives.
The issue areas of land use, system safety, hydrology, socioeconomics, air quality, and transportation were found to be the most important factors in this comparison due to the potential magnitude or severity of impacts in these areas. Thus, these issue areas were given more weight relative to the other issue areas. In addition, impacts that are of a long duration, or are widespread, are considered to be more important in the comparative analysis than short-term, localized impacts. Long-term effects have taken even more significance, given the 50 year lifetime of the proposed project and route segment alternatives.
3.2 Environmentally Superior Alternative
Determination of which of the project alternatives is environmentally superior is quite difficult and depends on many factors. Different alternatives are superior in certain environmental issue areas, and in some areas there are only slight differences among the alternatives. In order to meet the CEQA requirements to identify an environmentally superior alternative, we primarily considered the importance of issue areas that have potential long-term, widespread significant impacts (e.g., system safety, hydrology, air quality, and land use), and the most significant construction impacts (e.g., socioeconomics and transportation).
3.2.1 Summary of Conclusions
Table ES-3 summarizes the conclusions within each issue area as to whether the proposed route segment is environmentally superior to the alternative route segments or to the No Project Alternative. In this table, a plus ([) indicates that the alternative segment is supperior to the equivalent portion of the proposed route. In addition, a plus ([) or minus (,) also indicates whether the proposed project is superior to the No Project Alternative.
Tables ES-3
As shown in Table ES-3, the following segments were found to be environmentally superior:
- • Santa Fe Alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed route segment
- • Proposed route segment is environmentally superior to the Cherry Alternative Segment
- • Paramount Alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed segment
- • Alondra Alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed segment
- • Bellflower Rail Alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed segment
- • Artesia Alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed segment
- • Shoemaker Alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed segment.
The Proposed Project is environmentally supperior to the No Project Alternative by a wide margin. The No Project Alternative would not be the environmentally superior alternative due to the regional, long-term significant unavoidable risks and impacts associated with extensive trucking of petroleum products from Los Angeles and Colton to various destinations and increased use of existing pipelines. The impacts of trucking offset any advantages of the No Project Alternative with regard to avoidance of short-term construction impacts associated with the proposed project or alternative segments.
3.2.2 Creation of a Complete Environmentally Superior Pipeline Route
Because the 7 alternative pipeline segments have different starting and ending points, selection of the segment (proposed or alternative) that is environmentally superior does not necessarily result in creation of a pipeline route that runs continuously from Carson to Norwalk. Figure ES-2 illustrates the proposed and alternative segments that were found to be environmentally superior. This figure illustrates two complications: (a) the superior segments do not connect from start to finish, and (b) between Lakewood Boulevard and Studebaker Avenue, two alternative segments (Alondra and Bellflower Rail) were both found to be superior to the proposed route. These issues can be resolved with the following analysis.
Connection of Segments. The route segments can be connected by adding the portion of Artesia Boulevard between Paramount and Cherry Avenue. This portion of the Cherry Alternative includes no residences or sensitive receptors.
Bellflower Rail vs. Alondra Alternatives. The Bellflower Rail Alternative is environmentally superior in more issue areas than the Alondra Alternative, so it is considered to be the best alternative for the Lakewood Boulevard to Studebaker Avenue portion of the route. However, the Bellflower Rail Alternative re-joins the proposed route at Artesia Boulevard and the 605 Freeway. In order to complete the route to Norwalk, 3 routes are possible:
• Proposed route (Studebaker, 166th, Norwalk)
• Artesia Alternative Segment (Artesia, Norwalk)
• Alondra Alternative Segment (Studebaker to Alondra, Alondra to Norwalk).
Of these possibilities, the Artesia Alternative Segment is superior (as described in detail in Section D.3.6 below). This segment also avoids impacts to Cerritos College, where traffic impacts would be significant with construction along Alondra Boulevard.
Figure ES-2
Therefore, Figure ES-3 illustrates the route that is believed to combine the best portions of the proposed and alternative segments that reduces the impacts of the proposed project to the extent feasible. It should be noted that this combination route is 16.3 miles long, approximately 3.3 miles longer than the originally proposed route. This additional overall length results in potential increased impacts, particularly in two issue areas:
• System Safety: Because the probability of a spill occurring is directly related to the length of the pipeline, a 25% increase in overall length increases the likelihood that an accident could occur. The overall probability of a leak occurring would increase from 0.83 (one leak in 60 years) to 1.04 (one leak in 52 years).
• Air Quality: A longer pipeline route would result in proportionately more air emissions during construction.
3.3 Comparison of Alternatives
This section describes the basis for the above conclusions and presents a summary comparison of the impacts of the proposed project and alternatives. To facilitate a clear understanding of the relative merits of the various alternatives, this section highlights the major differences among the numerous alternatives, including the proposed project, with respect to environmental impacts. These include the 7 alternative route segments (Santa Fe, Cherry, Paramount, Alondra, Bellflower Rail, Artesia, and Shoemaker), as well as the No Project Alternative.
3.3.1 Santa Fe Alternative Segment
The Santa Fe Alternative Segment is environmentally superior to the proposed route, and would replace the proposed route segment from Laurel Park Drive to the corner of Victoria and Santa Fe Avenue. The advantages of the Santa Fe Alternative segment include:
• Avoidance of construction impacts and long-term spill risks on the 2 mobile home parks (east of Laurel Park and north of Victoria) and on the historic Dominguez Adobe.
• A slightly shorter route than the proposed segment, and therefore slightly fewer air emissions.
• No water wells along the Santa Fe Alternative Segment, versus one water well along the proposed segment
• Lower traffic volumes on Santa Fe Avenue than on Rancho Way and Laurel Park, so less traffic impacts.
The primary disadvantages of the Santa Fe Alternative relative to the proposed project is that there are more contaminated sites along the Santa Fe Alternative than along the proposed segment (3 medium potential sites on Santa Fe Alternative and none on proposed segment).
3.3.2 Cherry Alternative Segment
The proposed route segment along South Street (between Cherry and Paramount) and along Paramount is environmentally superior to the Cherry Alternative Segment. Compared to the equivalent portion of the proposed route, the Cherry Alternative segment would have an environmental advantage in just one issue area:
Figure ES-3
it would encounter fewer known contaminated sites (2 high potential sites and 6 medium sites along the alternative segment versus 6 high potential sites and 12 medium sites along the proposed segment).
Environmental disadvantages of the Cherry Alternative relative to the proposed project include:
• Approximately 160 residential units along the alternative segment versus 130 on the proposed segment
• Close proximity to an area of moderate susceptibility to liquefaction, whereas the equivalent portion of the proposed route would not be near liquefaction areas.
3.3.3 Paramount Alternative
Compared to the equivalent portion of the proposed pipeline route (along Artesia Boulevard between Paramount and Lakewood), the Paramount Alternative is preferred. This alternative segment has environmental advantages in the following areas:
• Only 1 sensitive noise and land use receptor and 270 residential units compared to 3 sensitive receptors and 500 residences.
• Lower traffic volumes along the Paramount Alternative segment (Cherry and Alondra) than those on the proposed route segment (Artesia Boulevard).
• Avoidance of an area of moderate liquefaction potential along Artesia Boulevard.
The Paramount Alternative has an environmental disadvantage with respect to the proposed route: it has more sites with medium potential for environmental contamination impacts to affect the project and nearby residents (8 sites versus 5 for the proposed route).
3.3.4 Alondra Alternative Segment
The Alondra Alternative Segment is preferred over the equivalent portion of the proposed route (Artesia Boulevard from Lakewood to Studebaker, Studebaker from Artesia to 166th, 166th from Studebaker to Norwalk, and Norwalk Boulevard from 166th to Alondra). Compared to the equivalent portion of the proposed route, the Alondra Alternative segment would have the following principal environmental advantages:
• Only 6 sensitive receptors and 270 residential units on the Alondra Alternative segment compared to and 10 sensitive receptors and 630 residences on proposed segment.
• Fewer 2 water wells along the Alondra Alternative Segment (2 wells versus 4 along the proposed segment).
Environmental disadvantages of this alternative relative to the proposed project would include:
• 2 contaminated sites with high potential to impact the project and 6 medium potential sites, compared to no high potential sites and 6 medium sites for the proposed project
• Significant traffic impacts near Cerritos College, where very high traffic volumes exist.
3.3.5 Bellflower Rail Alternative Segment
The Bellflower Rail Alternative Segment is environmentally preferred over the equivalent portion of the proposed route (Artesia Boulevard from Lakewood to Studebaker). Compared to the equivalent portion of the proposed route, the Bellflower Rail Alternative segment would have the following principal environmental advantages:
• Approximately 170 residential units compared to about 300 residences on the proposed route segment.
• Fewer businesses would be exposed to construction impacts within the rail ROW than along Artesia Boulevard.
• Rail ROW construction would have significantly less impact on traffic since 2.8 miles of construction would occur within the rail ROW (eliminating 2.4 miles of construction on Artesia Boulevard)
• Avoidance of the potential for co-locational accidents, since there are no existing utilities in the rail ROW.
• Avoidance of potential water quality and biological resources impacts since the San Gabriel River crossing would be bored instead of hung from a bridge (where it would be more susceptible to rupture).
The Bellflower Rail Alternative has two disadvantages relative to the proposed project:
• There are 5 water wells along the alternative segment, versus 2 wells along the proposed segment.
• The segment is about 1.5 times longer than the proposed route, so air emissions during construction could be greater (although construction could proceed at a significantly faster rate in the rail ROW). The additional length also increases the probability that a pipeline accident could occur.
3.3.6 Artesia Alternative Segment
The Artesia Alternative segment is preferred over the proposed route (Studebaker from Artesia to 166th, 166th from Studebaker to Norwalk). Compared to the equivalent portion of the proposed route, the Artesia Alternative segment would have the following principal environmental advantages:
• Significantly fewer residential units (50 versus 250 along the proposed route) and only 4 sensitive receptors, as compared 6 along the proposed route.
• This segment would avoid passing by the reservoir on Studebaker.
Environmental disadvantages of this alternative relative to the proposed project would include:
• Higher traffic volumes (the proposed route segment along 166th Street has 65% of traffic volume carried on Artesia Blvd) and more businesses that would be affected by construction on Artesia Blvd. than on the proposed route.
• Close proximity to 2 water wells versus 1 well for the proposed route segment.
• Higher number of environmental contamination sites (2 high potential sites and 3 medium sites as opposed to 2 medium sites and no high sites along the proposed route).
3.3.7 Shoemaker Alternative Segment
The Shoemaker Alternative Segment is preferred over the proposed route segment, which would involve construction on Norwalk Boulevard (between Alondra and the Norwalk Station) and within the Norwalk Station itself. Compared to the equivalent portion of the proposed Carson to Norwalk Pipeline, the Shoemaker Alternative segment would have the following principal environmental advantages:
• Slightly fewer residential units would be affected than on the proposed route (90 versus 110 units).
• Expansion of facilities within the Norwalk Station would be inconsistent with the City of Norwalk’s General Plan which indicates the Station’s incompatibility with the residential land uses in the vicinity.
• The Shoemaker Alternative Segment includes the potential for the project to impact 1 high potential site and 2 medium sites. The proposed segment has the potential to affect only one site; however this site is the Norwalk Station itself which overlies contaminated soil and groundwater, and is considered a high impact potential site.
Environmental disadvantages of this alternative relative to the proposed project include:
• Greater air quality impacts since the segment it is 1 mile longer than the proposed segment.
• More potential to disrupt businesses during construction because it would use Shoemaker Avenue and Alondra Boulevard and the proposed route portion is entirely residential.
3.3.8 No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative is described in Section B.9 and consists of using existing pipelines in combination with significantly increased trucking of petroleum products. Since no new construction would occur, the No Project Alternative would offer the following environmental advantages over the proposed project and alternative route segments:
• Residential areas, sensitive land uses, recreational facilities, businesses, and transportation systems would not be subjected to construction disturbances and new oil spill risks associated with the proposed project and other pipeline alternatives.
• No disturbance would occur to cultural resources from pipeline construction and maintenance.
• There would be no new pipeline subject to rupture by the Newport-Inglewood Fault.
Although use of existing pipelines under the No Project Alternative would offer short-term environmental advantages when compared to construction of a new pipeline, the long-term continuation and potential increase of truck transportation that is required due to lack of sufficient pipeline capacity render the No Project Alternative environmentally inferior. Major disadvantages of truck transportation include:
• Oil spill risks and fatality rates of truck transportation are significantly higher than for pipelines.
• The greatly increased truck traffic would affect the regional transportation network.
• Air pollutant emissions are significantly increased by truck transportation of crude oil. Truck transportation also requires substantially greater fossil fuel energy consumption.