OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT
MEETING OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2017 1515 Hughes Way, Long Beach, CA 90810
A G E N D A
OPEN SESSION – 2:45 p.m., Room 464 ORDER OF BUSINESS 1. Call to Order 2. Announcements In accordance with California Government Code Section 54950 and following, the various matters to be considered in Closed Session today will be announced. 3. Public comments on items listed on the Closed Session agenda.
CLOSED SESSION – Room 464 4. Student Discipline Matters Pursuant to CA Education Code Section 48900 and following 5. Confidential Student Matters Pursuant to CA Education Code Section 35146 6. Public Employee Discipline/Dismissal/Release 7. Public Employee Evaluation: Superintendent of Schools 8. Public Employee Appointment: Elementary School Principal, Elementary School Vice Principal, Middle/K-8 School Principal, Middle/K-8 School Assistant Principal, High School Principal, High School Principal of Instruction, High School Assistant Principal, Principal Coach, Head Counselor, Director, Assistant Director, Program Specialist, Program Administrator, Administrative Assistant, Executive Officer, Assistant Superintendent, Deputy Superintendent 9. Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Government Code Section 54956.8) Properties: 999 Atlantic Avenue, Long Beach, California 90813 (Assessor’s Parcel Number 7274- 015-900); 1491 Atlantic Avenue, Long Beach, California 90813 (Assessor’s Parcel Number 7269- 031-017) Negotiator: Alan L. Reising, Executive Director, Facilities Development and Planning; Sarine Abrahamian, Counsel for LBUSD, Orbach Huff Suarez & Henderson LLP Parties: LBUSD; Kre8tive Conceptions Corp. Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment for potential exchange of properties 10. Conference with Legal Counsel--Anticipated Litigation Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of CA Government Code Section 54956.9. Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9 11. Conference with Legal Counsel--Existing Litigation Pursuant to subdivision (a) of CA Government Code Section 54956.9 Case Nos. NC058295, MSN14-0310, 1197530, OCR No. 09-11-1220, OCR 09-11-1780, 13-09037, 000843, 13-12874, 09264441, BC585384,12461437, 10297261, 13527899 and 08A04000052 12. Collective Bargaining Proceedings Pursuant to Government Code Section 3549.1 13. Hearing of Complaints or Charges Brought Against an Employee by Another Person or Employee Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 for the following positions: Classroom Teachers, School Site Administrators, School Site Classified Employees. (Subject to 24 Hour Prior Notice to the Employee. This item may be heard in open session during this time period should the employee so choose pursuant to Section 54957.)
OPEN SESSION – 5:00 p.m., Community Room
ORDER OF BUSINESS SUBJECT DISPOSITION
14. Pledge of Allegiance and Call to Order AGENDA - Board of Education Meeting December 6, 2017 Page 2
15. In accordance with California Government Code Section 54957.7, the reports required of 54957.1 regarding actions taken in Closed Session will be made in writing at this time. The written report forms will continue to be made available upon request to the Assistant Secretary of the Board of Education.
16. Public Hearing None Information
17. Call for Agenda Items for Separate Action/Adoption of the Agenda as Posted Action
18. Approval of Minutes November 15, 2017 Action
19. Communications Recognition of Retirees Information Independent Audit Report 2016-2017 Information Financial and Performance Audit Reports for Information Measure K Bond Program 2016-2017 Financial and Performance Audit Reports for Information Measure E Bond Program 2016-2017
20. Public Testimony on Items (3 mins./Person, limit of 30 minutes – if Listed on Agenda translation is needed, time is doubled)
21. Staff Report None Information
22. Public Testimony on Items (3 mins./Person, limit of 30 minutes – if Not Listed on Agenda translation is needed, time is doubled)
23. Business Items Action Items Personnel Action Board Authorizations Action Coaching Assignment Action Instruction Action Finance Report Action Business Department Report Action Purchasing & Contract Report Action
24. Other Items Superintendent Items Student Discipline Action
25. Unfinished Business None Information/Action
26. New Business Board Meeting Schedule Action First Interim Financial Report for 2017-2018 Action Submittal of Career and Technical Education Action Facilities Program Application for Browning High School Submittal of Career and Technical Education Action Facilities Program Applications for Jordan High School
AGENDA - Board of Education Meeting December 6, 2017 Page 3
Submittal of Career and Technical Education Action Facilities Program Applications for Millikan High School Submittal of Career and Technical Education Action Facilities Program Application for Sato Academy Resolution 120617-A, Approving Proposed Action Project and Adopting Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Polytechnic High School Athletic Field Improvements Project Resolution 120617-B, Approving Proposed Action Project and Adopting the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for Webster Elementary School Interim Housing Project Resolution 120617-C, Relating to Information Action Made Available to the Public in the Form of an Annual and Five-Year Reportable Fees Report for Fiscal Year 2016-2017, in Compliance with Government Code Sections 66006 and 66001
27. Report of Board Members Information
28. Superintendent’s Report Information
29. Announcements Information
30. Adjournment & Setting of The next regular business meeting will be held Next Meeting on THURSDAY, DECEMBER 21, 2017.
ACCESS TO PUBLIC DOCUMENTS Public records related to the open session agenda that are distributed to the Governing Board less than 72 hours before a regular meeting, may be inspected by the public at the Board of Education Office at 1515 Hughes Way, Long Beach, CA 90810, during regular business hours (8:00 a.m. to 4:40 p.m.).
REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION FOR ANY INDIVIDUAL WITH A DISABILITY Any individual with a disability who requires reasonable accommodation to participate in a Board meeting may request assistance by contacting the Board of Education Office, 1515 Hughes Way, Long Beach, CA 90810; telephone: (562) 997-8240; fax: (562) 997-8280. BOARD OF EDUCATION LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
______
SUBJECT: Personnel Transactions Enclosures
______
CATEGORY: Business Items Reason for Board Consideration: Action
Human Resource Services Date: December 6, 2017 ______
The following employees are retiring after many years of loyal service to the district. The Superintendent recommends that letters of appreciation be written to them in recognition of their service.
1. Certificated Personnel
It is recommended that the certificated personnel transactions indicated on the personnel report be approved as listed.
Years of Name Position Location Service
Keller, Laurie Teacher Wilson 19
2. Classified Personnel
It is recommended that the classified personnel transactions indicated on the personnel report be approved as listed.
Years of Name Position Location Service
Dexter, Marianne Sr Sys Analyst Info Svcs 32 Fest, Jack Lndscp irr Wkr Grounds Svc 31 Light, Tracy Inter Office Asst-Sch Lakewood 20 Marcelle, Isa Int Nutr Svcs Wkr Nutr Svcs 33 Parker, Frankie Campus Sec Officer Wilson 25 Valenciano, Teresita Stu Eval Tech-Bl Sp Spec Ed 19 Wolfe, Nancy I Ast-Parent Rec Ctr-R EACCR 10 Zumwalde, Mindy S Inter Office Asst-Sch Washington 15
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION SERVICES HUMAN RESOURCE SERVICES
Ruth Perez Ashley Annotated by T Torres
John McGinnis CERTIFICATED Human Resource Services Long Beach Unified School District December 6, 2017
The Deputy Superintendent of Education Services recommends the following proposed actions for Board approval subject to requirements of California law:
APPOINTMENTS TO
(w)Baker, Kristin Special Contract Teacher N-Gant (o) Diamond, Camiesha Special Contract Teacher Head Start Salaam, Chandra Contract Consultant N-Jordan
Subject to separation if no substitute service for the school year:
(h) Arce, Andres Day to Day Substitute Teacher (w)Bolton, Taylor “ ” (b) Crodip, Shauniece “ ” Erdahl, Charles “ ” retiree (h) Fontaine, Frank “ ” (h) Gomez, Brandy “ ” (o) Lasalle, Olivia “ ” Miller, Colleen “ ” retiree Mireles, Christine “ ” on LOA (w)Olden Pekarcik, Alyssa “ ” (h) Simpson, Lydia “ ” Tanner, Laura “ ” on LOA (b) Tate, Aileen “ ” (p) Utupo, Justin “ ” (a) Winson, Elizabeth “ ”
INSERVICE CHANGES
Wilson, Daniel Regular Contract Teacher Waiver: Info and Comm Tech Alvarez, Claire Additional Service – Additional Hourly $1250 New Pr coach Avila, Deborah “ ” Sat schl admin Baril, Kimberley “ ” $1250 New Pr coach Blazer, Sandy “ ” $1250 stipend CACP Booker, Patrick “ ” Saturday School Brown, Jennifer M. “ ” Sat HS choice LBCC Brown, Quentin “ ” $1250 stipend CACP Casanave, Stacy “ ” After schl sppt sem Coleman, Veronica “ ” $1250 stipend CACP Cook, Mona “ ” $1250 stipend CACP Human Resource Services December 6, 2017 Board Recommendations Page 2 Certificated
INSERVICE CHANGES
Cooper, Stephanie Additional Service – Additional Hourly Sat schl admin Cruz, Kathleen “ ” $1250 stipend CACP Diggs, LaShell “ ” $1250 stipend CACP Ensminger, Martha “ ” Weekend FPM hours Eveland, Dorian “ ” Spv stipend 50% AP Fleming, Scott “ ” $1250 stipend CACP Forrester, Sarah “ ” $1250 stipend CACP Garcia, Edward “ ” $1250 stipend CACP Griffieth, Sophia “ ” $1250 New Pr coach Gutierrez, Juan “ ” $1250 stipend CACP Hatwan, Marie “ ” $1250 New Pr/CACP Ho-Ching, Tiffany “ ” Sat schl admin Holland, Kimberly “ ” $1250 Nw Pr/WASC Hosn, Rima “ ” Sat scl enrichment Imbroane, Cathleen “ ” $1250 stipend CACP Irving-Holder, Kaisha “ ” WASC report writing Keppler, Susan “ ” Linked learning pwy Lavelle, Tammy “ ” $1250 New Pr coach Leone, Anetta “ ” Linked learning pwy Littlejohn, Richard “ ” $1250 New Pr coach Ludden, Kelly “ ” $1250 stipend CACP Maddox, Kevin “ ” $1250 stipend CACP Madrigal, Salvador “ ” Saturday School Magee, Connie “ ” $1250 New Pr coach Malkus, Tom “ ” $1250 stipend CACP McGee, Shondi “ ” Saturday School Mendoza, Elio “ ” $1250 stipend CACP Merlo, Mona “ ” Admin meeting Myers-Miller, Damita “ ” $1250 Nw Pr/sat schl Nemec, Caroline “ ” $1250 New Pr coach Omaye, Jeffrey “ ” WASC report writing Peters, Rachel “ ” Saturday School Peterson, Denise “ ” $1250 New Pr coach Platis, Sam “ ” $1250 New Pr coach Rockenbach, Steven “ ” Admin meeting Saghbazarian, Manuel “ ” Sat schl admin Salas, William “ ” $1250 stipend CACP Salazar, Lucy “ ” $1250 New Pr coach Sowinski, Wendy “ ” $1250 New Pr coach Spenker, Paula “ ” Sat scl enrichment Traver, Megan “ ” $1250 New Pr coach Ung, Ryan “ ” After schl sppt sem Vega, Alejandro “ ” $1250 stipend CACP Wesley, Luana “ ” $1250 stipend CACP White, Marcie “ ” Saturday School Wood, Jeff “ ” $1250 stipend CACP
Human Resource Services December 6, 2017 Board Recommendations Page 3 Certificated
REVISION OF SALARY SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE DATE
Schedule E4 – Head Start Teacher (247 Day Calendar) 07/01/17 – Remove columns 331 and 332
LEAVES OF ABSENCE
NAME ASSIGNMENT DATES OF LEAVE
Christy, Terrence Teacher 02/26/18 to 03/23/18 Lindbergh Study
Hrzina, Jeffrey Teacher 10/18/17 to 01/30/18 Los Cerritos Family Medical Leave
Juarez, Brenda Teacher 11/18/17 to 01/07/18 McKinley Child Care
RESIGNATIONS (BOARD POLICY 4117.2)
DATE OF DATE OF NAME ASSIGNMENT EMPLOYMENT RESIGNATION
Miller, Garry Counselor 08/17/01 06/22/18 Washington
RETIREMENTS
DATE OF DATE OF NAME ASSIGNMENT EMPLOYMENT RETIREMENT
Keller, Laurie Teacher 09/07/99 06/15/18 Wilson
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION SERVICES HUMAN RESOURCE SERVICES
Annotated by P Wiesenhutter
CLASSIFIED AND EXEMPT John McGinnis Human Resource Services Committee Long Beach Unified School District December 06, 2017
The Deputy Superintendent, of Education Services, recommends the following proposed actions for Board approval subject to requirements of California law:
APPOINTMENTS TO
Classified - Probationary
Follett, Christopher J Cust Crew Spv P-Cabrillo Gutierrez, Erika IA-Educare Bl Sp P-Head Start Harvey Jr., George IA-Spec N-Franklin Hassen, Valerie R IA-Spec N-Tucker Howard, Kimberly P Cust Crew Spv P-Jordan Medrano, Vivian M IA-Spec N-Franklin Montiel Alvarez, Sofia A IA-Spec N-Spec Ed Nunez, Jerry Bldg Maint Wkr N-Maintenance Persanyi, Susan IA-Spec N-Buffum Pham, Thuy N IA-Spec N-Polytechnic Ramirez, Kathryn N IA-Spec N-Emerson Ruvalcaba, Gloria Sr Trans-Interpret-Bl Sp P-Curriculum Tep, Chhary IA-Spec N-Franklin Uribe, Evelyn Inter Office Asst-Sch Bl Sp P-Harte
Subject to separation if no substitute service for the school year
Goodloe Jr., Jonathan L Day to Day Substitute Custodian Abendschan, Justine N Day to Day Substitute Intermediate Office Assistant Palafox, Arielle B “ ” Lua, Dulce Day to Day Substitute Instructional Aide-Special Umpornpuckdi, Kimberly “ ” Cuevas, Mitzy A Day to Day Substitute Nutrition Services Worker Goodwin, Johnnie M “ ” Jenkins, Mariah A “ ” Perez, Jose R “ ”
Human Resource Services December 06, 2017 Board Recommendations Page 2 Classified and Exempt
APPOINTMENTS TO
Exempt
Carrillo Soto, Agustin Cafeteria Student Asst Conner, Jay-Lynn A “ ” Conner, Ravyn T “ ” Farmer, Reagan S “ ” Guerrero Yanez, Melina “ ” Hardiman, Sirjohn L “ ” Jackson, Joreese X “ ” Liu, Jasmine L “ ” Lopez, Alize “ ” Solorzano, Ashley “ ” Bartell, Kelly E Rec Aide Fildes, Dyane M “ ” Hamilton, Samira S “ ” Hernandez, Esperanza “ ” Shernaman, Samantha J “ ” Singleton, Maria S “ ” Tajik, Jamie L “ ” Anderson, Cheyenne Student Store Asst Bui, Dina D Student Tutor Dumas, Isis J “ ” Hun, Brittney S “ ” Hun, Natalie N “ ” Javier, Francois V “ ” Kong Jang, Alexander “ ” Kong Jang, Erin “ ” Leang, Zenita J “ ” Martinez, Celia “ ” Martinez, Saren V “ ” Nagin, Ria R “ ” Nguyen, Michelle P “ ” Pinloc, Julius A “ ” Plantenga, Addison N “ ” Sanabria, Coco K “ ” Tillack, Brian J “ ” Vo, Shannon M “ ” White, Melissa G “ ” Esparza, Krystal WCW Student Garcia, Alexia Y “ ” Acevedo Solis, Dennis Workability Student Betancourt Gavino, Christian “ ” Davis, Daniel J “ ” Davis Jr., John T “ ” Magana, Louis “ ” Martinez, Monique A “ ” Reese, Tianna S “ ” Sandoval, Princess M “ ” Speck, Malik D “ ”
Human Resource Services December 06, 2017 Board Recommendations Page 3 Classified and Exempt
APPOINTMENTS TO
Exempt
In Accordance with California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Section 5593:
Davis, Delton L Instructor Athletics (HS) De La Cruz Sillas, Juan “ ” Diaz, Alejandro “ ” Henderson, Jimiah J “ ” Hernandez, Miguel A “ ” Iles II, Jason E “ ” Kane, Brian S “ ” Langer, Christina J “ ” Masalosalo III, Samuel “ ” Murrietta, Jonathan S “ ” Robinson, Catherine A “ ” Rubio, Michael C “ ” Ruiz, Eugenio R “ ” Warren, Lemar E “ ”
Exempt
College Student Aide
As needed, not to exceed 18 hours per week, with no authorization to work during the intersession & winter/spring break, subject to certification.
Aranda, Suzette D Figueroa, Teresa DeJesus Smith, Alberto J
Exempt
Technology Aide
As needed, not to exceed 17.5 hours per week, with no authorization to work during the intersession & winter/spring break, subject to certification.
Balajadia Jr., Hilario C
Human Resource Services December 06, 2017 Board Recommendations Page 4 Classified and Exempt
LEAVES OF ABSENCE
NAME ASSIGNMENT DATES OF LEAVE
Daniel, Chanel R Head Start Par Aide (R) 11/10/17 to 01/07/18 Head Start Child Care
Henriquez, Sonia E IA-Spec 01/08/18 to 06/14/18 Millikan Other
Poston, Patricia M IA-Spec 11/28/17 to 12/03/17 Washington Child Care
Volkov, Sharon S Behavr Int Asst 11/28/17 to 06/14/18 Holmes Child Care
RESIGNATIONS (BOARD POLICY 4117.2) DATE OF DATE OF NAME ASSIGNMENT EMPLOYMENT RESIGNATION
Probationary
Rueda Garcia, Jane IA-Spec 08/30/17 08/30/17 Millikan
Permanent
Cabrera, Rosalia IA-Spec 02/26/15 12/01/17 Signal Hill
Delmendo, Maria C IA-Spec 09/12/16 11/10/17 Stephens
Menjivar, Michelle J IA-Spec 10/17/16 11/03/17 Madison
Paramo, Andrew R IA-Spec 10/17/16 11/06/17 CSULB
Parkin, Aoife M IA-Spec 06/06/16 06/15/17 Marshall
Perez Franco, Katie IA-Spec 07/11/16 11/27/17 Grant
Wilhite, Jennifer R IA-Spec 01/05/16 07/28/17 Hamilton
Human Resource Services December 06, 2017 Board Recommendations Page 5 Classified and Exempt
RESIGNATIONS (BOARD POLICY 4117.2) DATE OF DATE OF NAME ASSIGNMENT EMPLOYMENT RESIGNATION
Permanent
Wise, Tami S IA-Spec 08/31/16 12/14/17 McBride
RETIREMENTS DATE OF DATE OF NAME ASSIGNMENT EMPLOYMENT RETIREMENT
Dexter, Marianne M Sr Sys Analyst 09/04/86 12/29/17 Info Svcs
Fest, Jack T Landscape Irr Wkr 09/16/86 12/29/17 Grounds
Light, Tracy D Inter Office Asst-Sch 10/22/97 12/22/17 Lakewood
Marcelle, Isa A Int Nutr Svcs Wkr 12/11/84 12/29/17 Nutr Svcs
Parker, Frankie J Campus Sec Officer 09/14/92 11/17/17 Wilson
Valenciano, Teresita Stu Eval Tech-Bl Sp 10/01/98 12/29/17 Spec Ed
Wolfe, Nancy C I Ast-Parent Res Ctr-R 12/03/07 12/28/17 EACCR
Zumwalde, Mindy S Inter Office Asst-Sch 11/04/02 03/02/18 Washington
Board of Education LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
SUBJECT: Board Authorizations
CATEGORY: Business Items Reason for Board Human Resource Services Consideration: Action
Date: December 6, 2017
Background:
Education codes 44256(b), 44258.2, and 44263 expand the authorization for holders of Multiple Subject and Single Subject credentials, referred to as Board Authorizations. Board Authorizations are assignment options provided to employing districts and counties. School districts may expand subject authorizations only to teachers who hold a full credential (i.e., non-emergency, waiver, provisional internship, short term staff permit or intern).
To teach in a subject area other than designated by the credential, a teacher must complete 12 semester units in the additional subject to be authorized for middle school. Teachers must complete 18 semester units in the additional subject to be authorized for high school.
Recommendations:
That the Board of Education approve the attached Board Authorizations.
Prepared by: Approved and Recommended:
Ruth Perez Ashley Christopher Steinhauser Deputy Superintendent of Education Services, Superintendent of Schools Human Resources Services
1 2017-2018 BOARD AUTHORIZATIONS
Name School Subject
Allums, Derrick D. Lakewood French K-12 Angel, Amy Washington Social Science K-12 Avitable, Steven S. Cubberley Mathematics K-8 Physical Education K-8 Babcock, Kristina K. Washington Science K-8 Bachelier, Vicky S. Hamilton Health Science K-8 Baker, Torrie Jean Washington Mathematics K-8 Biscocho, Enrico M. Curriculum Industrial Education K-8 Blockburger, Cynthia G. Hamilton Health Science K-8 Boeglin, Erin L. Washington Mathematics K-8 Brady, Catherine M. Stanford Social Science K-12 Bravo, Robin L. Cabrillo Industrial Arts K-12 Brodowski, Tiffany A. Jordan English K-12 Brooks, Melisa G. Tincher English K-8 Art K-8 Bryant, Jamie A. Wilson Mathematics K-12 Bucko, Jeremy CAMS English K-12 Bulat, Patricia D. Rogers Social Science K-12 Cabacungan, Eric A. Washington Mathematics K-8 Campbell, Cory S. Sub Site English K-12 Carrizo, Andrea V. Bancroft English K-8 Chandrasekhar, Vanitha S. Curriculum Computers K-12 Chin, Wendy J. EACCR Mathematics K-8 English K-12 Contreras, Jessica Lakewood Mathematics K-12 Croft, Karen S. Jefferson Mathematics K-8 Cruz Juarez, Juan C. Hudson Mathematics K-8 Dalton-Sklarz, Heidi J. Jordan English K-12 Davis, Monica G. Rogers Mathematics K-8 De La Loza, Victor M. Lakewood Chemistry K-12 De Santiago, Javier Curriculum Industrial Education K-12 Del Cid, Sandra D. Jordan Social Science K-12
2 2017-2018 BOARD AUTHORIZATIONS
Name School Subject
Delang, Mary P. Franklin English K-12 Donnelly, Stefanie Gompers English K-12 Drab, Deborah D. Tincher Science K-12 Eulo, Wendy R. McBride HS Social Science K-12 Fast, Rebecca M. EACCR English K-8 Fiore, Pamela Lynn Newcomb English K-8 Flores, Vimmy Washington Science K-8 Florian, Kimberly V. Keller Spanish K-8 Funes, Sonia E. Gompers Science K-8 Garcia, Jennifer H. Gompers Art K-8 Garcia, Susan Powell Mathematics K-8 George, Ethan M. Hamilton Mathematics K-12 Science K-8 Godsil, Joseph G. Hudson English K-8 Art K-8 Goldner, William S. Stanford Social Science K-12 Gonzales, Arthur P. Jordan Mathematics K-12 Gonzalez, Veronica U. Dooley Mathematics K-8 Gonzalez-Poole, Deborah S. Wilson English K-12 Granado, Deborah B. Jefferson Mathematics K-8 Gregg, Susan L. Lakewood English K-12 Greiving, Lauren N. Lindsey Mathematics K-8 Guadagno, James H. Avalon Social Science K-12 Haldeman, Duane J. Wilson Physical Education K-12 Hale-Hanes, Cara L. McBride HS Chemistry K-12 Hall, Horace F. Wilson Social Science K-12 Hall, Stephen M. Avalon Spanish K-12 Harmon, Ronald L. Stanford Art K-12 Hauser, Sinnamon M. Renaissance Physical Education K-12 Hayashida, Nancy M. Curriculum Mathematics K-8 Heard, Ronaele Lakewood English K-12 Heavin, Alina Nelson Social Science K-12
3 2017-2018 BOARD AUTHORIZATIONS
Name School Subject
Heavin, Stephen L. Wilson Social Science K-12 Heilig, Stephanie M. Stanford Health Science K-8 Chemistry K-12 Heinrich, Kyle D. Millikan Mathematics K-8 Heredia, Claudia Washington English K-8 Hernandez-Nunez, Maribel Keller Science K-8 Higginbotham, Jeannette M. Hoover Social Science K-12 Highland, Margaret E. Bancroft English K-8 Hill, Gail M. Nelson Mathematics K-8 Hines, Christina R. Rogers Computers K-8 Hinkson, Patricia M. Jordan Business Education K-12 Hoffman, Steven A. Beach Mathematics K-12 Hogan, Brooke A. Robinson Health Science K-8 Huart, Joanel Z. Avalon English K-8 Hulen, Larry H. Jordan Physical Education K-12 Hutchens, Shawn A. Franklin English K-8 Hutchinson, Shauna R. Lindsey English K-12 Hutchison, Kelsey L. Browning Mathematics K-12 Huynh, Anna S. Millikan Chemistry K-12 Huynh, Crystal Newcomb Physical Education K-8 Irish, Jodi M. Jordan Industrial Arts K-12 James, Annitta L. Cabrillo Mathematics K-12 James, Sandra L. CAMS Physics K-12 Jeffery, Jake S. Newcomb English K-8 Johnson, Jeffrey Andrew Jordan Social Science K-12 Jones, Rodney S. Powell Mathematics K-8 Jones, Shawn D. Robinson Mathematics K-8 Jones, Tracy A. Newcomb English K-12 Jongerius, Robin L. Franklin Social Science K-8 Keiser, Davina M. Wilson Mathematics K-12 Kent, James R. Cabrillo Mathematics K-12 King, Carolynn M. Lakewood English K-12
4 2017-2018 BOARD AUTHORIZATIONS
Name School Subject
Kraft, Carol R. Lakewood Mathematics K-12 Krstich, Brian J. Hughes Health Science K-8 Kurz, Kelly W. Stanford Social Science K-12 Lamb, Christopher A. Jefferson Biological Science K-8 Lamprecht, Richard J. Cabrillo Physical Education K-12 Lang, Mary T. Hughes Mathematics K-8 Largent, Laurette L. Powell Physical Science K-12 Laub, James C. Washington Industrial Education K-12 Lewis, Alison M. Cubberley Social Science K-12 Art K-12 Licano, Albert K. Robinson Mathematics K-8 Science K-8 Lopez, Nancy E. Hughes Biological Science K-8 Ludwig, Randall P. Lakewood Chemistry K-12 Lukoff, Deidra A. Jordan Mathematics K-12 Lund, Heidi M. Millikan Mathematics K-12 Lynn, Michael Rogers Physical Education K-8 Maestas, Aline A. Cabrillo Social Science K-12 Mageean, Charles D. Jordan English K-12 Maldonado, Madelyn C. Lakewood Mathematics K-12 Marengo, Richard T. Robinson Industrial Arts K-8 Martinez Jr., Joseph Augusti Lakewood Mathematics K-12 Martinez, Elizabeth Lindsey Mathematics K-8 Martinez, Patricia A. Wilson English K-12 Mc Clure, Linda J. Bancroft Industrial Education K-12 Mc Kenzie, Marja K. Rogers English K-8 Mejia, Janice C. Wilson Mathematics K-12 Mendenhall, Joy M. Robinson English K-8 Mendis, Neil K. Bancroft Science K-8 Mendoza-Wong, Natalie J. Lindsey English K-8 Michaels, David S. Hughes English K-8 Michelson, Matthew P. Wilson Biology K-12
5 2017-2018 BOARD AUTHORIZATIONS
Name School Subject
Mikels-Braun, Dolores Nelson Social Science K-12 Miles, Alan K. Jordan Mathematics K-12 Miller, Jill S. Lakewood Physical Science K-12 Mills, James E. Sato Mathematics K-12 Minh, Doris Y. Lindsey English K-12 Morse, David R. Washington English K-8 Mosher, Kindra L. Jordan Physical Education K-12 Muniz, Jose Keller Mathematics K-8 Nishiyama, Ami CAMS Art K-12 Noble, Ellen P. Lakewood Biology K-12 Norris, Megan H. Nelson Mathematics K-8 O'Donnell, Zetta K. Nelson Chemistry K-8 O'Neill, Kathleen J. CAMS Chemistry K-12 Oberjuerge, Anne M. Curriculum Mathematics K-8 Ojinna, Chibuzor C. Nelson Social Science K-8 Olmedo Ardis, Fred G. McBride HS Industrial Education K-12 Oropeza, Karla B. Franklin Science K-12 Social Science K-8 Ottina, John M. Lakewood Mathematics K-12 Pagulayan, Zondee J. Lakewood Mathematics K-12 Pearson, Erin L. Robinson Mathematics K-8 Pech, Thy Lindbergh English K-8 Perez, Leoner J. Sato Industrial Arts K-12 Pirie, Cynthia C. Cubberley Science K-8 Pluton, Ishmael J. Poly French K-12 Purseglove, Yolanda M. Keller English K-8 Ramirez, Elizabeth Gompers Spanish K-12 Ramsey, Melinda B. Jordan Mathematics K-12 Rash, Kelly M. Jordan Social Science K-12 Rasmussen, Tiffany A. Hudson Health Science K-8 Robertson, Monique S. Powell Social Science K-12 Rodruck, Olga L. Keller English K-8
6 2017-2018 BOARD AUTHORIZATIONS
Name School Subject
Rosenquist, Michelle C. Renaissance Chemistry K-12 Rozolis-Hill, Thomas Cubberley English K-8 Sanchez, Rebecca L. Hamilton English K-8 Sarno, Denise J. Cabrillo English K-12 Sauerheber, Neil D. Newcomb Mathematics K-8 Savio, Cheryl E. Avalon English K-12 Scott, David A. Jordan English K-12 Setka, Jeannine R. Lindsey Science K-8 Health Science K-8 Sharp, Lisa M. McBride HS Chemistry K-12 Sheets, Marci J. Nelson English K-12 Sicaeros Jr., Porfirio H. Cabrillo Mathematics K-12 Sims, William A. Cabrillo Social Science K-12 Smith, Leslie C. Washington Science K-8 Sonoqui, Sharon L. Bancroft Mathematics K-8 Souders, Jack C. Tincher Science K-8 Spanish K-12 Spurlin, Erika Cabrillo Mathematics K-12 Sternin, Chrishanne L. Wilson Mathematics K-12 Stichman, Dana A. Washington, Sub Site Mathematics K-8 Tablada, Gabriel L. Cabrillo English K-12 Taylor-Fitoussi, Monica A. Millikan French K-12 Thompson, David J. Tincher Social Science K-12 Mathematics K-8 Tom, Brian A. Rogers Biological Science K-8 Torres, Maria B. Lakewood Chemistry K-12 Ussery, Erica M. Jordan Mathematics K-12 Valdez, Carri M. Millikan Business K-12 Vallianos, Jamie W. Tincher English K-12 Van Divort, Danielle Hughes Geoscience K-8 Vanzant-Bradney, Kay A. Nelson English K-12 Vecchiolla, Michael S. Hudson Mathematics K-12
7 2017-2018 BOARD AUTHORIZATIONS
Name School Subject
Velazquez, Beatriz Reid Spanish K-8 Victor, Kurt A. Stanford English K-12 Vo, Thanh V. Gompers Mathematics K-8 Waters, Jennifer L. Millikan Physical Education K-12 Weber, Anna B. Lakewood Biological Science K-12 Weber, Kyoko D. Curriculum Mathematics K-12 Weller, Kam Lakewood Biological Science K-12 Wells, Brie A. Millikan Social Science K-12 Whitesell, Elizabeth A. Bancroft Social Science K-12 Wilder, Krista D. Nelson Mathematics K-8 Science K-8 Williams, Robyn M. Stanford Mathematics K-8 Wilson, John R. Stanford Mathematics K-12 Science K-8 Wright Jr., Donell G. Lindbergh English K-12 Wu, Stephanie R. Newcomb Social Science K-8 Zambrano, Isaac Millikan Spanish K-12 Zeeman, John J. Cabrillo Mathematics K-12 Zelaya, Doris E. Millikan Chemistry K-12
8 Board of Education LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
SUBJECT: Coaching Assignment
CATEGORY: Business Items Reason for Board Human Resource Services Consideration: Action
Date: December 6, 2017
Background:
A teacher who holds a full credential other than physical education may coach a competitive sport for one period a day. The teacher is required to have a minimum of 20 hours of first aid instruction.
Education Code 44258.7(b) allows a full time teacher who holds a credential in a subject other than physical education to coach a competitive sport for which the students receive physical education credit for one period a day, if that teacher has completed a minimum of 20 clock hours of first aid instruction appropriate to the specific sport.
Prepared by: Approved and Recommended:
Ruth Perez Ashley Christopher Steinhauser Deputy Superintendent of Education Services, Superintendent of Schools Human Resources Services
1 The following teachers are recommended for a coaching assignment:
Name School Sport
Bassard-Jones, Stephanie L. Lakewood Baseball Bobo, Lindsay A. Lakewood Tennis Boese-Perez, Lisa A. Jordan Wrestling Brandts, Jonathan J. Lakewood Soccer Busch, Lisa D. Lakewood Volleyball Busch, Thomas E. Lakewood Golf Caine, Deborah P. Lakewood Swimming Carroll, Michael J. Jordan Golf Dorman, Blake T. Cabrillo Volleyball Esparza, Enrique Lakewood Basketball Finley, Frances E. Avalon Track, Cross Country Gardner, Keedrick D. Cabrillo Wrestling Gonzalez, Randy S. Lakewood Wrestling Harper, Ronald P. Lakewood Basketball Henderson, John H. Lakewood Football Johnson, Matthew C. Millikan Volleyball Kaeka, Michelle L. Lakewood Gymnastics Kafka, Michael D. Jordan Soccer Karres, Scott D. Poly Football Klein, David H. Lakewood Volleyball Lane, Andrew W. Jordan Basketball Martinez Jr, George Cabrillo Football Mc Namee, Thomas J. Lakewood Tennis Mcwhorter, Sean W. Lakewood Golf Miles, Alan K. Jordan Softball Miller, Jill S. Lakewood Basketball Miramontes, Andy F. Lakewood Softball Palmer, Melissa S. Lakewood Marching Band Pircher, Kathryn E. Millikan Softball Robertson, Timothy C. Cabrillo Basketball Ryan, Julie Cabrillo Volleyball
2 The following teachers are recommended for a coaching assignment:
Name School Sport
Santo, Mark A. Jordan Soccer Schafer, Kelsey M. Jordan Water Polo Scipio, Ronald L. Jordan Drill Team Siemsen, Ralph M. Lakewood Soccer Tang, Thanh Phuong Lakewood Badminton View, Emily R. Lakewood Volleyball Volkoff, Aaron A. Lakewood Track, Cross Country Woodward, Stuart M. Cabrillo Soccer Zell, Aubray L. Lakewood Softball
3 BOARD OF EDUCATION LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
SUBJECT: Instruction Enclosures
CATEGORY: Business Item/s Reason for Board Consideration: Action/Information Date: December 6, 2017
1. APPROVE SINGLE PLANS FOR STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT FOR 2017-2018
Approve the Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) for Bryant, Carver, Dooley, Edison, Fremont, Gant, Harte, Henry, King, Lafayette, Lincoln, Longfellow, Lowell, MacArthur, Madison, McKinley, Naples, Riley, Signal Hill, Smith, Twain, and Whittier Elementary Schools; Gompers, Hamilton, Hughes, Jefferson, Lindbergh, Newcomb, Powell, Stephens, Tincher, and Washington Middle/K-8 Schools; Beach, Cabrillo, CAMS, EPHS, Jordan, Lakewood, McBride, Poly, Renaissance, and Wilson High Schools; Avalon K-12 School. Each plan has been developed and approved by the site’s School Site Council and contains the components of effective planning based on student needs, assessment data, use of staff, parent involvement, and allocation of resources. Each of the plans has been reviewed by Equity, Access, and College & Career Readiness staff for compliance. Each schools’ approved SPSA for the 2017-2018 school year will also serve as an interim plan until the following school year’s SPSA is revised and approved. The funding for all programs and personnel outlined in these SPSAs is reflective of the current fiscal year only.
2. APPROVE DISCOVERY RESEARCH GRANT FOR KING
Approve King Elementary’s proposal for the National Science Foundation’s Discovery Research grant. King’s proposal looks to extend and enhance their science program to include more hands- on projects and experiments. The intent is to create larger, more complex projects/units of study. The total request is $13,502 worth of STEM materials including robotics and coding kits, beakers, heat plates, SMART tables, and other science materials.
3. APPROVE REVISED BOARD POLICY 6020.1 – PARENT INVOLVMENT POLICY IN TITLE I FUNDED SCHOOLS
Approve Board Policy 6020.1- Parent Involvement Policy in Title I Funded Schools., which was revised to comply with the requirements of the Every Student Succeeds Act. This policy has been thoroughly discussed at the District English Learner Advisory Committee (DELAC) and at the District Community Advisory Committee (DCAC). On November 16, 2017, DCAC approved the proposed policy.
4. APPROVE REVISED BOARD POLICY 1312.4 – WILLIAMS UNIFORM COMPLAINT PROCEDURES
Approve revisions to Board Policy 1312.4 – Williams Uniform Complaint Procedures. This policy is a process for investigating and resolving complaints about textbooks and instructional materials, teacher vacancy or misassignment, and facilities. The Board Policy is being revised to reflect updated required language from the California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Section
1 4680(a). The proposed changes satisfy the requirements currently set forth by the California Department of Education.
Prepared by Approved and Recommended by
James Suarez, Assistant Director Christopher J. Steinhauser Equity, Access, and College Superintendent of Schools & Career Readiness Jill Baker Deputy Superintendent of Schools
Ruth Ashley Deputy Superintendent of Education Services
Pamela Seki, Assistant Superintendent Curriculum, Instruction, Professional Development
Brian Moskovitz, Assistant Superintendent Elementary Schools
Jay Camerino, Assistant Superintendent Middle/K-8 Schools
Pete Davis, Assistant Superintendent High Schools
mb/js
2 INSTRUCTION BP 6020.1
Parent Involvement Policy in Title I Funded Schools
The Governing Board recognizes that parents/guardians from throughout the district’s ethnically diverse population serve as an invaluable resource in the process of educating children. The Board believes that a child’s education is a responsibility shared by family and school. To ensure a collaborative partnership, the Board, administration and the staff are committed to providing parent involvement activities which are of sufficient size, scope and quality to promote an effective home-school partnership by:
1. Involving parents/guardians in the joint development of the district’s Title I plan planning efforts for providing programs that increase the academic quality of schools and including parents in the process of school review and improvement;
2. Consulting on an ongoing basis with parents/guardians concerning the manner in which the school and parents/guardians can work together to identify objectives, plan, design, implement, and evaluate school programs to ensure student academic achievement and school performance;
3. Providing the coordination, technical assistance, and other support necessary to assist schools in planning and implementing effective parent/family involvement activities to improve student academic achievement and school performance; at least 1 percent of the district’s Title I, Part A funds will be reserved for parental involvement and 95% of those funds will be distributed to schools, to be used for where parents of Title I students shall be involved in the decisions to be used for their parental involvement programs;
4. Supporting the efforts of parents/guardians in working with their children to understand/attain the State Academic Content and Performance Standards, assessments being used, the requirements of Title I, Part A, and the monitoring of their children’s progress and work with teachers to improvement achievement and social development;
5. Building parent capacity for meaningful parental involvement and providing opportunities to help parents/guardians strengthen their parenting and literacy skills to foster conditions at home that affect children’s effort in learning to improve their child’s academic success and social development, including, but not limited to, such topics as ensuring appropriate learning conditions at home, helping their child at home with schoolwork, and fostering a growth mindset, self-efficacy and self-management skills.
6. Ensuring that information related to school and parent programs, meetings, and other activities is sent to the parents of participating children in a format, and to the extent practicable, in a language the parents can understand; when 15 percent or more of the student population at the district or school site speak a single primary language other than English, all notices, reports, statements, or records sent to a
1
BP 6020.1
parent/guardian of any such student by the school or school district, are in addition to being written in English, written in the primary language(s);
7. Informing parents/guardians of participating children of the (a) reasons their children are participating in the program(s), (b) specific instructional objectives and methods of the program(s), and (c) the academic performance of their child’s school and of the options they have to ensure appropriate educational placement of their student;
8. Training parents/guardians and teachers to build a partnership between home and school to increase student achievement and promote effective two-way communication in a language all parents can understand; providing School-Home Compacts that set out the respective responsibilities of the school staff, parents and students in striving to raise student achievement;
9. Encouraging parents/guardians to assume school and district leadership roles in governance, advisory, and advocacy decision-making processes; providing parents with an opportunity to submit dissenting views to the district if a school’s parent involvement guidelines or Single Plan for Student Achievement are not acceptable to them;
10. Providing professional development for teachers, pupil services personnel, principals and other staff, with the assistance of parent input, on ways to reach out to, communicate with and implement parent programs that build partnerships between parents and the schools;
11. Involving parents/guardians in annual evaluations of the content, effectiveness, and relevance of the District’s Parent Involvement Policy and Parent Involvement Guidelines at the school site level in improving the academic quality of the schools, including identifying barriers to greater student achievement and using the findings of such evaluations to design strategies for more effective involvement of parents and families and uses the findings of the evaluation to design more effective parental involvement and revise the policy, as necessary;
12. Coordinating and integrating Title I, Part A parental involvement programs and strategies with parent involvement strategies of other programs, including with the district’s Child Development Centers (CDC), Head Start, and other preschool programs that encourage parent participation, seamless transitions and greater success of preschoolers;
13. Coordinating and maintaining Parent Resource Centers (as budget allows) that provide literacy training, home-learning activities, and the guidance parents need to support their child’s academic success;
14. Helping parents/guardians acquire needed services through identified school district and community resources; providing other reasonable support for parent involvement activities as parents may request;
2
BP 6020.1
15. Establishing a district parent advisory council (DCAC) with representatives from each school, to provide advice or input on matters related to parent involvement, allotted Title I funds at the school site level and awareness of funded programs.
Legal References EDUCATION CODE 11500-11506 Programs to encourage parent involvement UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 20 6301 Program purpose 6318 Parent involvement
Adopted: January 28, 1991 Revised: March 1, 1994 February 6, 2001 March 7, 2006 November, 2007 February 16, 2010 July 5, 2011 December 6, 2017 LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
3
COMMUNITY RELATIONS BP1312.4
Williams Uniform Complaint Procedures
Types of Complaints
The district shall use the following procedures to investigate and resolve complaints when the complainant alleges that any of the following has occurred: (Education Code 35186)
1. Textbooks and Instructional materials
a. A pupil, including an English learner, does not have standards-aligned textbooks or instructional materials or state or district adopted textbooks or other required instructional materials to use in class.
b. A pupil does not have access to textbooks or instructional materials to use at home or after school.
c. Textbooks or instructional materials are in poor or unusable condition, have missing pages, or are unreadable due to damage.
d. A pupil was provided photocopied sheet from only a portion of a textbook or instructional materials to address a shortage of textbooks or instructional materials.
2. Teacher vacancy or misassignment
a. A semester begins and a teacher vacancy exits.
Vacancy means a position to which a single designated certificated employee has not been assigned at the beginning of the year for an entire year or, if the position is for a one semester course, a position to which a single designated certificated employee has not been assigned at the beginning of a semester for an entire semester. (Education Code 35186; 5 CCR 4600)
Beginning of the year or semester means the first day classes necessary to serve all the students enrolled are established with a single designated certificated employee assigned for the duration of the class, but not later than 20 working days after the first day students attend classes for that semester. (5 CCR 4600)
b. A teacher who lacks credentials or training to teach English learners is assigned to teach a class with more than 20 percent English learner students in the class.
c. A teacher is assigned to teach a class for which the teacher lacks subject matter competency.
1 BP1312.4
Misassignment means the placement of a certificated employee in a teaching or services position for which the employee does not hold a legally recognized certificate or credential or the placement of a certificated employee in a teaching or services position that the employee is not otherwise authorized by statute to hold. (Education Code 35186; 5 CCR 4600)
3. Facilities
a. A condition poses an emergency or urgent threat to the health or safety of students or staff.
Emergency or urgent threat means structures or systems that are in a condition that poses a threat to the health and safety of students or staff while at school, including but not limited to gas leaks; nonfunctioning heating, ventilation, fire sprinklers, or air conditioning systems; electrical power failure; major sewer stoppage; major pest or vermin infestation; broken windows or exterior doors or gates that will not lock and that pose a security risk; abatement of hazardous materials previously undiscovered that pose an immediate threat to students or staff; or structural damage creating a hazardous or uninhabitable condition. (Education Code 17592.72)
b. Every restroom is not maintained and cleaned regularly, fully operational and stocked at all times with toilet paper, soap, and paper towels or functional hand dryers. All school site restrooms are not open during school hours when pupils are not in classes, or a sufficient number of restrooms are not open during school hours when pupils are in classes.
Filing a Complaint
A complaint alleging any condition(s) specified above shall be filed with the principal or designee of the school in which the complaint arises.
The principal or designee shall forward a complaint about problems beyond his/her authority to the Superintendent or designee within in a timely manner, but not to exceed 10 working days.) (Education Code 35186; 5 CCR 4680)
Investigation and Response
The principal or designee shall make all reasonable efforts to investigate any problem within his/her authority. He/she shall remedy a valid complaint within a reasonable time period not to exceed 30 working days from the date the complaint was received. (Education Code 35186; CCR 4685)
Complaints may be filed anonymously. If the complainant has indicated on the complaint form that he/she would like a response to his/her complaint, the principal or designee shall report the resolution of the complaint to him/her within 45 working days of the initial filing of
2 BP 1312.4 the complaint. If a response is requested, the response shall be sent to the mailing address of the complainant as indicated on the complaint form. If 15 percent or more of the students enrolled in a school speak a single primary language other than English, a parent or guardian who files a complaint written in that primary language and requests a response is entitled to a response written in the language in which the complaint was filed. At the same time, the principal or designee shall report the same information to the Superintendent or designee. (Education Code 35186; 5 CCR 4680, 4685)
Appeal Process
If a complainant is not satisfied with the resolution of the complaint, he/she has the right to describe the complaint to the Governing Board at a regularly scheduled meeting. (Education Code 35186; 5 CCR 4686)
For complaints concerning a facility condition that poses an emergency or urgent threat to the health or safety of students or staff as described in item #3 above, a complainant who is not satisfied with the resolution proffered by the principal or Superintendent or designee may file an appeal to the Superintendent of Public Instruction within 15 days of receiving the district’s response. (Education Code 35186) The complainant shall comply with the appeal requirements specified in the Title 5, California Code of Regulation, Section 4632. Complaints and written responses shall be public records. (Education Code 35186; 5 CCR 4686-7)
Reports
The Superintendent or designee shall report summarized data on the nature and resolution of all complaints to the Board and the County Superintendent of Schools on a quarterly basis. The report shall include the number of complaints by general subject area with the number of resolved and unresolved complaints. These summaries shall be publicly reported on a quarterly basis at a regularly scheduled Board meeting. (Education Code 35186; 5 CCR 4686)
Forms and Notices
The Superintendent or designee shall ensure that the district’s complaint form contains a space to indicate whether the complainant desires a response to his/her complaint and specifies the location for filing a complaint. A complainant may add as much text to explain the complaint as he/she wishes. However, complainants need not use the district’s Williams complaint form in order to file a complaint. (Education Code 35186)
The Superintendent or designee shall ensure that a notice is posted in each classroom in each school containing the components specified in Education Code 35186. (Education Code 35186)
Legal References: EDUCATION CODE 1240 County Superintendent of schools, duties 17592.72 Urgent or emergency repairs, School Facility Emergency Repair Account
3 BP 1312.4
33126 School Accountability Report Card 35186 Williams uniform complaint procedure 35292.5 Restrooms, maintenance and cleanliness 37254 Supplemental instruction based on failure to pass exit exam by end of grade 12 48985 Notice to parents in language other than English 60119 Hearing on sufficiency of instructional materials CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE V 4600-4671 Uniform complaint procedure 4680-4687 Williams complaints Management Resources: WEB SITES CSBA: http://csba.org California Department of Education, Williams case: http://cde.ca.gov/eo/ce/wc/index.asp
Adopted: September 20, 2005 Revised: May 16, 2006 May 1, 2007 January 22, 2008 December 6, 2011 October 5, 2016 December 6, 2017 LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
4 CONSENT ITEM
BOARD OF EDUCATION LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
SUBJECT: Finance Report Enclosures
CATEGORY: Business Items Reason for Board Consideration: Action Fiscal Services Date: December 6, 2017
1. Ratify Salary Warrants issued on October 20, 2017 and transfer of funds to Payroll Clearance Fund to cover deductions as follows:
General Fund $ 2,393,722.49 Adult Education Fund 46,793.19 Child Development Fund 204,871.20 Cafeteria Special Revenue Fund 108,433.85 Building Fund 367.36
TOTAL SALARY WARRANTS ISSUED…………………………………………… $ 2,754,188.09
2. Ratify Salary Warrants issued on October 27, 2017 and transfer of funds to Payroll Clearance Fund to cover deductions as follows:
General Fund $ 625,587.39 Adult Education Fund 3,909.60 Child Development Fund 15,960.77 Cafeteria Special Revenue Fund 23,949.08 Building Fund 4,043.58 Salary Advance 4,072,053.00
TOTAL SALARY WARRANTS ISSUED…………………………………………… $ 4,745,503.42
3. Ratify Salary Refund Warrants Issued on October 27, 2017 as follows:
TOTAL PAYROLL CLEARANCE FUND WARRANTS ISSUED………………… $ 71.92 Finance Report Page 2 December 6, 2017
4. Ratify Salary Warrants issued on November 9, 2017 and transfer of funds to Payroll Clearance Fund to cover deductions as follows:
General Fund $ 41,639,183.83 Adult Education Fund 83,082.14 Child Development Fund 1,480,323.45 Cafeteria Special Revenue Fund 1,140,158.32 Building Fund 101,625.63 Self-Insurance Fund 20,533.63
TOTAL SALARY WARRANTS ISSUED…………………………………………… $ 44,464,907.00
5. Ratify Salary Refund Warrants Issued on November 9, 2017 as follows:
TOTAL PAYROLL CLEARANCE FUND WARRANTS ISSUED………………… $ 194.35
6. Ratify the execution and issuance of the warrants included in the following listing. Individual warrant listings are included in the agenda and available under separate cover.
10/24/17-11/7/17 F 53321 - F 53520 10/26/17 24135534-24135620 11/02/17 24148008-24148094 10/26/17 00352488-00352489 11/02/17 00353679-00353679 10/27/17 24137997-24138046 11/03/17 24150989-24151047 10/30/17 24140445-24140487 11/06/17 24153622-24153664 10/30/17 00353012-00353014 11/06/17 00353966-00353966 10/31/17 24143078-24143164 11/07/17 24169276-24169305 11/01/17 24145269-24145371
Funds
General Fund $ 4,934,320.40 Adult Education Fund 25,818.08 Child Development Fund 147,179.67 Cafeteria Special Revenue Fund 1,241,915.96 Building Fund 5,903,073.63 Capital Facilities Fund 8.73 Self-Insurance Fund 1,683,502.50 Warrant/Pass-Through Fund 598,035.32
TOTAL WARRANTS ISSUED……………...…………………………………….... $ 14,533,854.29 Financial Report Page 3 December 6, 2017
Recommendation
Approve/Ratify the above listed items.
Approved: Approved and Recommended:
Yumi Takahashi Christopher J. Steinhauser Chief Business and Financial Officer Superintendent of Schools CONSENT ITEM
BOARD OF EDUCATION LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
SUBJECT: Business Department Report Enclosures
CATEGORY: Business Items Reason for Board Consideration: Action
Business Department Date December 6, 2017
Accept Gifts: Accept the following gifts to the District: Amount or Site Name Donor Gift Purpose Amount Est. by Donor 1. Barton Nicholas F. Monetary For the benefit of the students $200.00 Bormann and staff. 2. Birney Long Beach Monetary For the benefit of the students $105.00 Education and staff. Foundation 3. Birney Donald H. Monetary For the benefit of the $150.00 Mooshagian students.
4. Birney Robyn Marie Monetary For the purchase of a $250.00 Gibson classroom rug. 5. Bixby Bixby PTA Monetary Funding for field trip $4,500.00 transportation. 6. Carver George Monetary Funding for the Lexia $8,500.00 Washington Reading program for the Carver PTA 2017/18 school year. 7. Carver George Monetary For the funding of the ESGI $750.00 Washington assessment platform licenses Carver PTA for the 2017/18 school year. 8. Carver George Monetary For the benefit of the science $1,100.00 Washington lab. Carver PTA 9. Carver George Monetary For the purchase of student $455.73 Washington planners. Carver PTA 10. Carver CEC Monetary For the purchase of $638.24 Entertainment, instructional materials and Inc. supplies. 11. Carver Get Prepared Monetary For the purchase of $405.00 instructional materials and supplies.
Business Department Report December 6, 2017 Page 2
Amount or Site Name Donor Gift Purpose Amount Est. by Donor 12. Emerson Get Prepared Monetary For the benefit of the students $786.00 and staff. 13. Gant Minnie Gant Monetary For the purchase of thirty-six $9,565.18 Elementary (36) Chromebooks and one School PTA (1) cart. 14. Gant McDonald’s Monetary For the benefit of the students $1,250.00 #20426 and staff. 15. Henry Patrick Henry Monetary For the benefit of the students $12,451.03 PTA and staff. 16. Holmes Oliver Wendell Monetary For the benefit of the students $525.00 Holmes and staff. Elementary School PTO 17. King Starr King PTO Monetary For the benefit of the students $188.04 and staff. 18. Lowell Free Monetary For the purchase of tables $2,500.00 Conferencing and chairs for the library. Corporation 19. Lowell Lowell Monetary Funding for field trips. $9,618.00 Elementary PTA 20. Lowell Lowell PTA Monetary For the purchase of (4) $7,492.62 MacBook Pros for Kindergarten Teachers. 21. Lowell Lowell PTA Monetary For the benefit of the $391.72 Techonolgy program. 22. Poly The Loren R. Hilf Monetary For four (4) Scholarships in $8,000.00 Charitable the amount of $2,000 each to Foundation be awarded to seniors continuing with their higher education. 23. Rogers Rogers Middle Monetary Funding for hourly Recreation $8,000.00 School PTA Aides. 24. Roosevelt Glowaki Monetary For the benefit of the students $250.00 Chiropractic and staff. 25. Stanford Tricia Wilkerson Four (4) For the benefit of the students $892.98 Chromebooks in the RSP program. 26. Tincher Leadership Long Monetary For the benefit of the $500.00 Beach Robotics Program.
Business Department Report December 6, 2017 Page 3
Amount or Site Name Donor Gift Purpose Amount Est. by Donor 27. Tincher Wonderful Monetary For the benefit of the students $800.00 Giving in the speech program. 28. Washington Melinda Clare Apple TV For the benefit of the students $250.00 64gb, SN: and staff. CO7VSGF8GXH8
29. Webster Barbara Wheelchair For the benefit of the students $125.00 Christensen and staff. 30. Webster Webster Monetary For the benefit of the students $1,000.00 Elementary PTO and staff. Gifts Total Total amount of monetary gifts on this report: $80,371.56 Total value of non-monetary gifts on this report: $1,267.98 Reject Claims as follows: In accordance with the procedure as established by legal counsel, reject the claim(s) presented on behalf of claimant(s) under claim number(s), in connection with incident(s) as listed below. Authorize transmittal to the District’s liability claims administrator. Claim Number Date of Incident 31. 1390 -16/17 05/04/17 32. 1436 -17/18 04/20/17 33. 1452 -17/18 09/01/15
Business Department Report December 6, 2017 Page 4
Recommendation:
Approve the items listed above.
Approved: Approved and Recommended:
Yumi Takahashi Christopher J. Steinhauser Chief Business and Financial Officer Superintendent of Schools
CONSENT ITEM
BOARD OF EDUCATION LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ______
SUBJECT: Purchasing & Contract Report Enclosures _ _
CATEGORY: Business Items Reason for Board Consideration ___ __Action______
Purchasing & Contracts Date December 6, 2017 ______
Contract Report
The following contracts are submitted for approval and available upon request:
New Agreements and Renewals - General
1. Agreement: The American Physiological Society (1718-0308-00) Purpose: To provide hands-on interactive activities regarding physiology, exercise, and health to selected students at Naples Elementary School. Term: 11/7/2017 - 6/30/2018 Type: New Agreement Cost: No cost to the District Originator: Naples Funding Source: N/A
2. Agreement: AR&C-Long Beach, Inc. dba Hillside Enterprises (1718-0302-00) Purpose: To provide special education workshops for students with exceptional needs participating in the Adult Community Transition Program. Term: 7/1/2017 - 6/30/2018 Type: Renewal - 15th year Cost: To be a maximum of $7,200 Originator: Spec. Ed. Funding Source: Spec. Ed./General Fund
3. Agreement: Autism Partnership (1718-0311-00) Purpose: For use of facilities and services for the purpose of providing the Work-Based Learning instructional/professional program for selected students. Term: 10/1/2017 - 6/20/2020 Type: New Agreement Cost: No cost to the District Originator: Assistant Superintendent - High Schools Funding Source: N/A
Purchasing and Contract Report December 6, 2017 Page 2
4. Agreement: California Conference of Equality and Justice (1718-0306-00) Purpose: To provide the Building Bridges Youth Human Relations Camp for selected students at Sato Academy. Term: 10/12/2017 - 6/30/2018 Type: New Agreement Cost: No cost to the District Originator: Sato Funding Source: N/A
5. Agreement: California Conference of Equality and Justice (1718-0307-00) Purpose: To provide the Building Bridges Youth Human Relations Camp for selected students at Renasissance High School. Term: 9/15/2017 - 6/30/2018 Type: New Agreement Cost: To be a maximum of $3,300 Originator: Renaissance Funding Source: General Fund - LCFF
6. Agreement: California Conference of Equality and Justice (1718-0310-00) Purpose: To provide the Building Bridges Youth Human Relations Camp for selected students at Jordan High School. Term: 9/1/2017 - 6/30/2018 Type: New Agreement Cost: To be a maximum of $11,400 Originator: Jordan Funding Source: General Fund - LCFF
7. Agreement: California Conference of Equality and Justice (1718-0313-00) Purpose: To provide the Building Bridges Youth Human Relations Camp for selected students at McBride High School. Term: 10/19/2017 - 6/30/2018 Type: New Agreement Cost: To be a maximum of $3,300 Originator: McBride Funding Source: General Fund - LCFF
8. Agreement: California Conference of Equality and Justice (1718-0314-00) Purpose: To provide the Building Bridges Youth Human Relations Camp for selected students at Beach High School. Term: 9/1/2017 - 6/30/2018 Type: New Agreement Cost: To be a maximum of $1,900 Originator: Beach Funding Source: General Fund - LCFF
9. Agreement: City of Long Beach Department of Parks, Recreation & Marine (1718-0301-00) Purpose: For use of facilities and services for the purpose of providing special education vocational training for selected students. Term: 10/14/2017 - 10/12/2022 Type: New Agreement Cost: No cost to the District Originator: Spec. Ed. Funding Source: N/A
Purchasing and Contract Report December 6, 2017 Page 3
10. Agreement: Infinity Communications & Consulting, Inc. (1718-0300-00) Purpose: To provide E-Rate consulting services as-needed for the Technology & Information Services Branch, including processing applications, RFP management, and audit support. Term: 7/1/2017 - 6/30/2020 Type: Renewal - 2nd 3-year term Cost: To be a maximum of $135,000 Originator: TISB Funding Source: General Fund
11. Agreement: Inspyr Arts, LLC (1718-0303-00) Purpose: To provide artist presentation assemblies for students at Barton Elementary School. Term: 11/1/2017 - 6/18/2018 Type: New Agreement Cost: To be a maximum of $6,000 Originator: Barton Funding Source: General Fund - LCFF
12. Agreement: Alexei Lalo (1718-0327-00) Purpose: To provide Russian primary language support, translation, and interpreting services as-needed throughout the District. Term: 12/6/2017 - 6/30/2018 Type: New Agreement Cost: To be a maximum of $26,200 Originator: OCIPD Funding Source: ESEA: Title III, English Learner Student Program
13. Agreement: Marshall Cavendish Corporation (1718-0305-00) Purpose: To provide professional development workshops for staff at Westerly School. Term: 11/4/2017 - 11/9/2017 Type: New Agreement Cost: To be a maximum of $7,067 Originator: EACCR Funding Source: ESEA: Title II, Part A, Teacher Quality
14. Agreement: Pawsitively Long Beach (1718-0312-00) Purpose: For use of facilities and services for the purpose of providing work-based instruction for students enrolled in the Animal Care I-II-III-IV instructional program. Term: 11/15/2017 - 11/14/2022 Type: New Agreement Cost: No cost to the District Originator: Assistant Superintendent - High Schools Funding Source: N/A
15. Agreement: Shaila Saint (1718-0309-00) Purpose: To provide parent education workshops for parents of students at Hughes Middle School. Term: 9/1/2017 - 6/14/2018 Type: New Agreement Cost: To be a maximum of $4,000 Originator: Hughes Funding Source: General Fund - LCFF
Purchasing and Contract Report December 6, 2017 Page 4
16. Agreement: Tesoro SoCal Pipeline Company LLC (1718-0315-00) Purpose: For a right of entry agreement to allow Tesoro access to the Don Allen Yard for the purpose of making improvements and changes to their pipeline. Term: 8/22/2017 - 1/22/2018 Type: New Agreement Cost: No cost to the District Originator: Maintenance Funding Source: N/A
17. Agreement: Thinking Maps, Inc. (1718-0304-00) Purpose: To provide professional development workshops for staff at Bethany Lutheran School. Term: 2/16/2018 Type: New Agreement Cost: To be a maximum of $1,800 Originator: EACCR Funding Source: ESEA: Title II, Part A, Teacher Quality
New Agreements and Renewals - Facilities
18. Agreement: American Engineering Laboratories, Inc. (10307.01) Purpose: To provide DSA inspection services for the Webster Interim Housing project. Term: 12/7/2017 through project completion Type: New Agreement Cost: To be a maximum of $80,000 Originator: Facilities Funding Source: Building Fund
19. Agreement: Associated Soils & Engineering (10173.02) Purpose: To provide geotechnical engineering consulting services for the Polytechnic High School Track and Field project. Term: 12/7/2017 - 12/31/2018 Type: New Agreement Cost: To be a maximum of $30,590 Originator: Facilities Funding Source: Building Fund
20. Agreement: ATC Associates, Inc. (10299.01) Purpose: To provide hazardous materials surveying and construction monitoring services for the McKinley Elementary School HVAC project. Term: 12/7/2017 - 12/31/2018 Type: New Agreement Cost: To be a maximum of $50,798 Originator: Facilities Funding Source: Building Fund
21. Agreement: Converse Consultants (10303.01) Purpose: To provide materials testing and inspection services for the Polytechnic High School Track and Field project. Term: 12/7/2017 - 6/30/2018 Type: New Agreement Cost: To be a maximum of $20,500 Originator: Facilities Funding Source: Building Fund
Purchasing and Contract Report December 6, 2017 Page 5
22. Agreement: Integrity Environmental Consultants, Inc. (10295.01) Purpose: To oversee the mold remediation work and collect environmental samples for the Browning High School - New Construction project. Term: 6/8/2017 - 12/31/2017 Type: New Agreement Cost: To be a maximum of $32,707 Originator: Facilities Funding Source: Building Fund
23. Agreement: Knowland Construction Services (10300.01) Purpose: To provide DSA inspection services for the Kettering and Rogers Interim Housing projects. Term: 10/23/2017 through project completion Type: New Agreement Cost: To be a maximum of $21,680 Originator: Facilities Funding Source: Building Fund
24. Agreement: Knowland Construction Services (10302.01) Purpose: To provide DSA inspection services for the Riley Interim Housing project. Term: 10/23/2017 through project completion Type: New Agreement Cost: To be a maximum of $10,000 Originator: Facilities Funding Source: Building Fund
25. Agreement: Linik Corporation (10308.01) Purpose: To provide construction management services for the Cleveland and Riley Elementary School HVAC projects. Term: 12/15/2017 - 12/31/2018 Type: New Agreement Cost: To be a maximum of $433,440 Originator: Facilities Funding Source: Building Fund
26. Agreement: NB Consulting Engineers, Inc. (10297.01) Purpose: To provide land and utility surveying services for the Naples Elementary School Pavement Improvements project. Term: 11/17/2017 - 6/30/2018 Type: New Agreement Cost: To be a maximum of $23,990 Originator: Facilities Funding Source: Building Fund
27. Agreement: NB Consulting Engineers, Inc. (10298.01) Purpose: To provide land and utility surveying services for the Grant Elementary School Pavement Improvements project. Term: 11/17/2017 - 6/30/2018 Type: New Agreement Cost: To be a maximum of $31,990 Originator: Facilities Funding Source: Building Fund
Purchasing and Contract Report December 6, 2017 Page 6
28. Agreement: Platt Security, Inc. (10012.02) Purpose: To provide security services for the Jordan High School Major Renovation project. Term: 1/1/2018 - 6/30/2019 Type: Renewal Cost: To be a maximum of $258,054 Originator: Facilities Funding Source: Building Fund
29. Agreement: RS Construction Services, Inc. (10304.01) Purpose: To provide DSA inspection services for the Cleveland and Riley Elementary School HVAC projects. Term: 1/1/2018 through project completion Type: New Agreement Cost: To be a maximum of $240,240 Originator: Facilities Funding Source: Building Fund
30. Agreement: Sandy Pringle Associates Inspection Consultants (10305.01) Purpose: To provide DSA inspection services for the Garfield Elementary School HVAC project. Term: 12/7/2017 through project completion Type: New Agreement Cost: To be a maximum of $139,750 Originator: Facilities Funding Source: Building Fund
31. Agreement: Sandy Pringle Associates Inspection Consultants (10306.01) Purpose: To provide DSA inspection services for the Stephens Middle School HVAC project. Term: 12/7/2017 through project completion Type: New Agreement Cost: To be a maximum of $104,000 Originator: Facilities Funding Source: Building Fund
32. Agreement: Trident CPM Consulting (10301.01) Purpose: To provide project scheduling services for various projects throughout the District. Term: 10/1/2017 - 12/31/2018 Type: New Agreement Cost: To be a maximum of $21,750 Originator: Facilities Funding Source: Building Fund
33. Agreement: Trustees of the California State University on Behalf of California State University, Long Beach(10296.01) Purpose: For use of facilities at The Richard & Karen Carpenter Performing Arts Center for the “Wilson High School Winter Dance Show,” due to the construction of Wilson’s auditorium. Term: 10/20/2017 - 12/31/2017 Type: New Agreement Cost: To be a maximum of $17,260 Originator: Facilities Funding Source: Building Fund
Purchasing and Contract Report December 6, 2017 Page 7
Amend Agreements - General
34. Agreement: City of Long Beach Department of Parks, Recreation & Marine (1617-0502-01) Purpose: For a right of entry permit to allow the District access to Houghton Park for the purpose of making improvements to the baseball field. Term: Extend contract completion date from 11/30/2016 to be through 1/31/2019. All other terms and conditions to remain the same. Originator: Grounds Services Funding Source: N/A
35. Agreement: Kerrie E. Weaver (1718-0090-01) Purpose: To provide additional nutritional assessments of children and training on best infant and toddler nutrition practices for Early Head Start staff, parents, and expectant families. Cost: Increase contract amount by $8,680 from $9,310, to be a maximum of $17,990. All other terms and conditions to remain the same. Originator: Head Start Funding Source: Head Start
36. Agreement: Tesoro SoCal Pipeline Company LLC (1718-0315-01) Purpose: For a right of entry agreement to allow Tesoro access to the Don Allen Yard for the purpose of making improvements and changes to their pipeline, by including Phase II work. All other terms and conditions to remain the same. Cost: No cost to the District Originator: Maintenance
Amend Agreements - Facilities
37. Agreement: Department of Toxic Substance Control (10047.01) Purpose: To provide additional on-going services to oversee the site investigation at Wilson High School. Cost: Increase contract amount by $14,269 from $22,150, to be a maximum of $36,419. All other terms and conditions to remain the same. Originator: Facilities Funding Source: Building Fund
38. Agreement: Petra Geosciences, Inc. (4978.02) Purpose: To provide geotechnical engineering consulting services for the Auditorium Renovation and Boiler Replacement at Wilson High School project. All other terms and conditions to remain the same. Term: Extend contract completion date from 12/31/2017 to be through 6/30/2018. Originator: Facilities Funding Source: Building Fund
39. Agreement: Placeworks, Inc. dba Placeworks (10206.01) Purpose: To provide additional California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation services for the Kettering Interim Housing project. Cost: Increase contract amount by $10,089 from $57,618, to be a maximum of $67,707. All other terms and conditions to remain the same. Originator: Facilities Funding Source: Building Fund
Purchasing and Contract Report December 6, 2017 Page 8
40. Agreement: Twining Consulting, Inc. (10238.01) Purpose: To provide additional geotechnical engineering services for the Polytechnic High School - ADA Improvements project. Cost: Increase contract amount by $4,244 from $12,560, to be a maximum of $16,804. Term: Extend contract completion date from 12/31/2017 to be through 6/30/2018. All other terms and conditions to remain the same. Originator: Facilities Funding Source: Building Fund
41. Agreement: TYR, Inc. (10218.01) Purpose: To provide additional inspection services for the Poly High School - Improvements (Parking Lot) project. Cost: Increase contract amount by $8,040 from $23,584, to be a maximum of $31,624. All other terms and conditions to remain the same. Originator: Facilities Funding Source: Building Fund
42. Agreement: Winefield & Associates, LP dba Alta Environmental (10203.01) Purpose: To provide additional hazardous material surveying, testing, and abatement plan preparation for the Stephens Middle School HVAC project. Term: Extend contract completion date from 12/31/2017 to be through 12/31/2018. Cost: Increase contract amount by $24,370 from $20,735, to be a maximum of $45,105. All other terms and conditions to remain the same. Originator: Facilities Funding Source: Building Fund
43. Agreement: Winefield & Associates, LP dba Alta Environmental (10204.01) Purpose: To provide additional hazardous material surveying, testing, and abatement plan preparation services for the Garfield Elementary School HVAC project. Term: Extend contract completion date from 12/31/2017 to be through 12/31/2018. Cost: Increase contract amount by $24,370 from $14,950, to be a maximum of 39,320. All other terms and conditions to remain the same. Originator: Facilities Funding Source: Building Fund
44. Agreement: Winefield & Associates, LP dba Alta Environmental (10207.01) Purpose: To provide additional hazardous material surveying, testing, and abatement plan preparation for the Webster Elementary School HVAC project. Cost: Increase contract amount by $24,370 from $14,105, to be a maximum of $38,475. All other terms and conditions to remain the same. Originator: Facilities Funding Source: Building Fund
45. Agreement: Winefield & Associates, LP dba Alta Environmental (10230.01) Purpose: To provide additional hazardous material surveying, testing, and abatement plan preparation for the Kettering Elementary School HVAC project. Term: Extend contract completion date from 12/31/2017 to be through 12/31/2018. Cost: Increase contract amount by $24,370 from $13,450, to be a maximum of $37,820. All other terms and conditions to remain the same. Originator: Facilities Funding Source: Building Fund
Purchasing and Contract Report December 6, 2017 Page 9
46. Agreement: Winefield & Associates, LP dba Alta Environmental (10231.01) Purpose: To provide additional hazardous material surveying, testing, and abatement plan preparation for the Rogers Middle School HVAC project. Term: Extend contract completion date from 12/31/2017 to be through 12/31/2018. Cost: Increase contract amount by $24,370 from $17,479, to be a maximum of $41,849. All other terms and conditions to remain the same. Originator: Facilities Funding Source: Building Fund
47. Agreement: Winefield & Associates, LP dba Alta Environmental (10232.01) Purpose: To provide additional hazardous material surveying, testing, and abatement plan preparation for the Jefferson Middle School HVAC project. Term: Extend contract completion date from 12/31/2017 to be through 12/31/2018. Cost: Increase contract amount by $24,370 from $17,479, to be a maximum of $41,849. All other terms and conditions to remain the same. Originator: Facilities Funding Source: Building Fund
Income/Reimbursement Agreement - General
48. Agreement: Long Beach Community College District (1617-0807-02) Purpose: To reimburse the District to provide services as LBCC’s partner in California Career Pathways/Work-Based Learning and Pathways/Transitions development activities. Reimbursement: Increase reimbursement amount by $250,000 from $1,286,676, to be a maximum of $1,536,676. All other terms and conditions to remain the same. Originator: Assistant Superintendent - High Schools
Bid Awards
The following bids are submitted for approval and available upon request:
Authorize Bid Awards
Bid Award Amendment - General
49. Add additional vendor to RFP No. 216-1718 awarded on October 2, 2017 for the Purchase of Fresh Baked Pizza Delivered to Various School Locations for the Outside Vendor Sales Program for the period of 10/3/2017 through 6/30/2018, by adding Yummy OMG Pizza, Inc. dba Papa John’s Pizza as an authorized vendor. Funding Source: Cafeteria Special Revenue Fund
Construction Bid - Facilities
50. Award Bid No. FAC15-1718 for the Wireless Networking Phase 5 at Various Sites project and approve contract with AAA Network Solutions, Inc. for the amount of $269,761.01. Reject apparent low bidder, as non-responsive. Funding Source: Building Fund
Reject Bid - Facilities
51. Reject all bids received for Bid No. FAC14-1718 for the Portable Relocation - Facilities project.
Purchasing and Contract Report December 6, 2017 Page 10
Membership Approvals
Authorize District Membership
52. Approve District membership in the following organization:
Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce [Originator-Assistant Superintendent-High Schools/$600]
Recommendation
Approve and/or ratify the contracts, and take action on the bids as listed above.
Approved: Approved and Recommended:
Yumi Takahashi Christopher J. Steinhauser Chief Business and Financial Officer Superintendent of Schools
RH/rk/sp; BS/sc BOARD OF EDUCATION LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
______
SUBJECT: Board Meeting Schedule Enclosures: None
______
CATEGORY: New Business Reason for Board Consideration: Action
Date: December 6, 2017 ______
It is recommended that the regular Board of Education meeting scheduled for Thursday, December 21, 2017 be canceled.
The next regular meeting is scheduled for January 17, 2018.
Approved and Recommended:
Christopher J. Steinhauser Superintendent of Schools
BOARD OF EDUCATION LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
SUBJECT: First Interim Financial Report for 2017-2018 Enclosures
CATEGORY: New Business Reason for Board Consideration: Action
Financial Services Date: December 6, 2017
BACKGROUND:
Education Code Sections 35035(i), 42130, and 42131 require school districts to prepare two reports regarding the financial and budgetary status of the District. The first report covers the period ending October 31, and the second report covers the period ending January 31. The District is required to prepare these interim reports in a format prescribed by the state and in accordance with the state’s Standards and Criteria. In addition, the Governing Board of each school district is required to certify to the district’s ability to meet its financial obligations for the remainder of that fiscal year and for the subsequent two fiscal years.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve a positive certification of the First Interim Financial Report for 2017-2018 indicating that the Long Beach Unified School District will be able to meet its financial obligations for the remainder of the 2017-2018 fiscal year and the following two fiscal years, and authorize filing of this report with the Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools, in accordance with Education Code Section 35035(i).
Approved: Approved and Recommended:
Yumi Takahashi Christopher J. Steinhauser Chief Business and Financial Officer Superintendent of Schools
BOARD OF EDUCATION LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ______
SUBJECT: Submittal of Career and Technical Education Enclosures: ___No_____ Facilities Program Application for Browning High School
______
CATEGORY: New Business Item Reason for Board Consideration: ____Action__
Business Services Date: December 6, 2017 ______
BACKGROUND:
The District’s Offices of both Facilities Development and Planning and Career and Technical Education (CTE) will be applying for Proposition 1D funding allocated by the California Department of Education for Career and Technical Education Programs. The application process is competitive, and funds must be used to construct new CTE facilities, reconfigure or modernize existing CTE facilities or for the purchase of equipment.
The proposed project at Browning High School will provide students in grades nine to twelve, an innovative program which introduces students to academic and technical experience.
The proposed Browning project will have one academic pathway; Hospitality, Tourism, and Recreation.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the submittal of one (1) Career Technical Education Facilities Program Application to the California Department of Education for proposed Browning High School project.
Approved by: Approve and Recommended:
Yumi Takahashi Christopher J. Steinhauser Chief Business & Financial Officer Superintendent of Schools
BOARD OF EDUCATION LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ______
SUBJECT: Submittal of Career and Technical Education Enclosures: ___No_____ Facilities Program Applications for Jordan High School ______
CATEGORY: New Business Item Reason for Board Consideration: ____Action__
Business Services Date: December 6, 2017 ______
BACKGROUND:
The District’s Offices of both Facilities Development and Planning and Career and Technical Education (CTE) will be applying for Proposition 1D funding allocated by the California Department of Education for Career and Technical Education Programs. The application process is competitive, and funds must be used to construct new CTE facilities, reconfigure or modernize existing CTE facilities or for the purchase of equipment.
The proposed projects at Jordan High School will provide students in grades nine to twelve innovative programs which introduce students to academic and technical experience.
The proposed Jordan High School projects will have two academic pathways; Engineering and Architecture; Health, Science and Medical Technology.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the submittal of two (2) Career Technical Education Facilities Program Applications to the California Department of Education for the proposed Jordan High School projects.
Approved by: Approve and Recommended:
Yumi Takahashi Christopher J. Steinhauser Chief Business & Financial Officer Superintendent of Schools
BOARD OF EDUCATION LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ______
SUBJECT: Submittal of Career and Technical Education Enclosures: ___No_____ Facilities Program Applications for Millikan High School ______
CATEGORY: New Business Item Reason for Board Consideration: ____Action__
Business Services Date: December 6, 2017 ______
BACKGROUND:
The District’s Offices of both Facilities Development and Planning and Career and Technical Education (CTE) will be applying for Proposition 1D funding allocated by the California Department of Education for Career and Technical Education Programs. The application process is competitive, and funds must be used to construct new CTE facilities, reconfigure or modernize existing CTE facilities or for the purchase of equipment.
The proposed projects at Millikan High School will provide students in grades nine to twelve innovative programs which introduce students to academic and technical experience.
The proposed Millikan project will have four academic pathways; Arts, Media and Entertainment; Business and Finance; Information and Communication Technologies; Public Service.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the submittal of four (4) Career Technical Education Facilities Program Applications to the California Department of Education for the proposed Millikan High School projects.
Approved by: Approve and Recommended:
Yumi Takahashi Christopher J. Steinhauser Chief Business & Financial Officer Superintendent of Schools
BOARD OF EDUCATION LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ______
SUBJECT: Submittal of Career and Technical Education Enclosures: ___No_____ Facilities Program Application for Sato Academy
______
CATEGORY: New Business Item Reason for Board Consideration: ____Action__
Business Services Date: December 6, 2017 ______
BACKGROUND:
The District’s Offices of both Facilities Development and Planning and Career and Technical Education (CTE) will be applying for Proposition 1D funding allocated by the California Department of Education for Career and Technical Education Programs. The application process is competitive, and funds must be used to construct new CTE facilities, reconfigure or modernize existing CTE facilities or for the purchase of equipment.
The proposed project at Sato Academy will provide students in grades nine to twelve, an innovative program which introduces students to academic and technical experience.
The proposed Sato Academy project will have one academic pathway; Engineering and Architecture.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the submittal of one (1) Career Technical Education Facilities Program Application to the California Department of Education for the proposed Sato Academy project.
Approved by: Approve and Recommended:
Yumi Takahashi Christopher J. Steinhauser Chief Business & Financial Officer Superintendent of Schools
BOARD OF EDUCATION LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ______
SUBJECT: Resolution No.120617-A Enclosures: ___Yes_____ Approving the Proposed Project and Adopting the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Polytechnic High School Athletic Field Improvements Project ______
CATEGORY: New Business Item Reason for Board Consideration: ____Action__
Business Services Date: December 6, 2017 ______
BACKGROUND: The Polytechnic High School Athletic Field Improvements Project (“Project”), located at Polytechnic High School, will improve and modernize existing athletic field facilities located in the eastern portion of the Polytechnic High School campus. The proposed project would be implemented in two phases over a period of eight years. During Phase 1, the project would include replacement of existing track and field with a new synthetic track and field, replacement of existing scoreboard with a new scoreboard and installation of new sports field lighting with four 80 to 90- feet high light poles. During Phase 2, the project would include relocation of tennis courts, relocation of portable classrooms, replacement of the existing softball field with a new synthetic softball field, and construction of a 50-meter outdoor athletic pool with security lighting.
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study was conducted to assess significant environmental impacts associated with the Project. Based on the study’s findings a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), which states that the project would present less than significant impact if mitigation measures are adopted, is recommended. Mitigation measures include noise controls during construction.
The IS/MND was sent to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to public agencies for review and was available for public review at six locations including: District Board Building, Polytechnic High School, Facilities Development and Planning Branch, Long Beach Main Library, Signal Hill Library and Lakewood Library.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend approval of Resolution No. 120617-A
A RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNING BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT APPROVING THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND ADOPTING THE INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE POLYTECHNIC HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC FIELD IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
Approved: Approved and Recommended:
Yumi Takahashi Christopher J. Steinhauser Chief Business & Financial Officer Superintendent of Schools
RESOLUTION NO. 120617-A
A RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNING BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT APPROVING THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND ADOPTING THE INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE POLYTECHNIC HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC FIELD IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Long Beach Unified School District (“District”) owns the real property located at 1600 Atlantic Ave, Long Beach, California and operates an high school known as the Polytechnic High School; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project commonly referred to as the Polytechnic High School Athletic Field Improvements Project (“Project”). The District proposes to improve and modernize existing athletic field facilities located at the Polytechnic High School campus. The project would be implemented in two phases over a period of eight years. Phase 1 would include replacement of existing track and field with a new synthetic track and field, replacement of existing scoreboard with a new scoreboard and installation of new sports field lighting with four 80 to 90-feet high light poles. Phase 2 would include relocation of tennis courts, relocation of portable classrooms, replacement of the existing softball field with a new synthetic softball field, and construction of a 50-meter outdoor athletic pool with security lighting; and
WHEREAS, prior to commencement of the Project, the District must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
WHEREAS, the District, acting as the Lead Agency as defined in the Public Resources Code (PRC) §21067, retained Ultra Systems to prepare an Initial Study for the Project to ascertain whether the Project may have a significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, the Initial Study disclosed there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, on the basis of the Initial Study, District staff determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration should be prepared for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared pursuant to CEQA Statute and Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the District has made the Draft IS-MND available for review and comment by the general public and public agencies; and
WHEREAS, the 30-day public review period of the Draft IS-MND commenced on October 13, 2017, and ended on November 11, 2017; and
WHEREAS, the District published a Notice of Intent to Adopt an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND) in the local newspaper, posted a copy of the notice and IS-MND document at Los Angeles County Clerk-Registrar Recorders Office, District Facilities Development & Planning Branch, Board Building, Polytechnic High School, Long Beach Main Library, Signal Hill Library, Lakewood Library; and
1
WHEREAS, the District did not receive comment letters from the public; and
WHEREAS, the Final IS-MND has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines and to the State of California Public Resources Code.
WHEREAS, the District has reviewed and considered the Final IS-MND for the Project, and has considered the written comments on the Draft IS.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Long Beach Unified School District Governing Board makes the determinations and findings and takes the actions as referenced below pursuant to all applicable Education Codes, State Codes, Public Resources Codes and CEQA Guidelines:
• The foregoing recitals are true and correct.
• Each and all of the findings and determinations contained herein are based upon competent and substantial evidence, either oral, written, or both, contained in the entire administrative record relating to the Project;
• That the Board reviewed and considered the information contained in the IS-MND including, without limitation, the Draft Initial Study and any comments made at the public hearing or contained in the administrative record for the Project prior to approving the Project.
. The Board hereby certifies the following with respect to the IS-MND:
• That the Final IS-MND prepared for the Project contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project; and
. That the Final IS-MND has been completed in compliance with CEQA Statute and Guidelines is hereby certified as adequate and complete; and
• That the Final IS-MND was presented to the Long Beach Unified School District Governing Board and that Board reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final IS-MND prior to approving the project; and that the Final IS- MND reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the District; and
FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED that the Long Beach Unified School District Governing Board hereby certifies the Final IS-MND, attached as Exhibit A; and
FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED that the Long Beach Unified School District Governing Board hereby approves the Project; and
FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED the Long Beach Unified School District Facilities Development and Planning staff is hereby directed to: (i) prepare for filing with the appropriate governmental agency(ies) a written notice memorializing the Board’s determination of the IS- ND certification as to the Project and approval of the Project (“Notice of Determination” or “NOD”); and
FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED that the Superintendent of the Long Beach Unified School District or his representative is authorized to initiate such steps as appropriate and necessary to: (i) prepare final construction plans, specifications and estimates; (ii) implement the mitigation measures identified, (iii) obtain necessary permits and approvals for the construction of the Project, (iv) take such other steps as may be necessary to
2 construct the Project; and (v) bring back to this Governing Board any appropriate recommendations to further implement the foregoing.
FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED that the location and custodian of records with respect to all of the relevant documents and any other material which constitute the administrative record for the IS-MND are as follows: Executive Director, Facilities Development and Planning Branch, Long Beach Unified School District, 2425 Webster Avenue, Long Beach, CA 90810.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, we have hereunto set our hand on this 6th day of December 2017.
THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
BY ______President
BY ______Vice President
BY ______Member
BY ______Member
BY ______Member
3
EXHIBIT A
Final Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
4
INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT POLYTECHNIC HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC FIELD IMPROVEMENTS
Prepared for:
Long Beach Unified School District Facilities Development and Planning Branch 2425 Webster Avenue Long Beach, CA 90810
Prepared by:
UltraSystems Environmental Inc. 16431 Scientific Way Irvine, CA 92618-4355 Telephone: 949.788.4900 | FAX: 949.788.4901 UEI No. 6041
October 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... iv
1.0 Introduction ...... 1-1 1.1 Project Overview ...... 1-1 1.2 Lead Agency ...... 1-1 1.3 Review and Comment by Other Agencies ...... 1-2 1.4 Requirements of an Initial Study ...... 1-2 1.5 Mitigation Measures ...... 1-3 1.6 Incorporation by Reference ...... 1-3 1.7 Organization of Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ...... 1-4 1.8 Findings from the Initial Study ...... 1-5 1.9 Process for Adoption of MND ...... 1-5
2.0 Environmental Setting ...... 2-1 2.1 Project Site ...... 2-1 2.2 Former Uses ...... 2-6 2.3 Existing Site Conditions ...... 2-6 2.4 Climate and Air Quality...... 2-7 2.5 Geologic and Soil Setting ...... 2-8 2.6 Project Topography and Hydrology ...... 2-8 2.7 Biological Setting ...... 2-8
3.0 Project Description ...... 3-1 3.1 Project Overview ...... 3-1 3.2 Project Location ...... 3-1 3.3 Proposed Project ...... 3-2 3.4 Construction Activities and Schedule ...... 3-6 3.5 Reviewing Agencies ...... 3-7 3.6 Discretionary Actions ...... 3-7
4.0 Environmental Checklist ...... 4-1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ...... 4-1 Determination (To Be Completed by the Lead Agency) ...... 4-1 4.1 Aesthetics ...... 4.1-1 4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ...... 4.2-1 4.3 Air Quality ...... 4.3-1 4.4 Biological Resources ...... 4.4-1 4.5 Cultural Resources ...... 4.5-1 4.6 Geology and Soils ...... 4.6-1 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...... 4.7-1 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...... 4.8-1 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ...... 4.9-1 4.10 Land Use and Planning ...... 4.10-1 4.11 Mineral Resources ...... 4.11-1 4.12 Noise ...... 4.12-1 4.13 Population and Housing ...... 4.13-1 4.14 Public Services ...... 4.14-1
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page i Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS
4.15 Recreation ...... 4.15-1 4.16 Transportation and Traffic...... 4.16-1 4.17 Tribal Cultural Resources ...... 4.17-1 4.18 Utilities and Service Systems ...... 4.18-1 4.19 Mandatory Findings of Significance ...... 4.19-6
5.0 References ...... 5-1
6.0 List of Preparers ...... 6-1 6.1 Lead Agency ...... 6-1 6.2 UltraSystems Environmental, Inc...... 6-1 Environmental Planning Team ...... 6-1 Technical Team ...... 6-1 Subcontractors ...... 6-1
7.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ...... 7-1
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1-1 - Summary of Land Uses and Zoning ...... 2-1 Table 4.1-1 - Special Requirements for School Site Selection and Approval ...... 4-2 Table 4.1-2 - Obtrusive Light Limitations for Exterior Lighting Installations ...... 4.1-3 Table 4.3-1 - Federal and State Attainment Status ...... 4.3-4 Table 4.3-2 - Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data ...... 4.3-5 Table 4.3-3 - Regional Thresholds of Significance ...... 4.3-7 Table 4.3-4 - SCAQMD Localized Thresholds for Construction ...... 4.3-8 Table 4.3-5 - Estimated Construction Emissions ...... 4.3-10 Table 4.3-6 - Estimated Onsite Construction Emissions ...... 4.3-11 Table 4.7-1 - Construction GHG Emissions ...... 4.7-7 Table 4.12-1 - Measured Ambient Noise Levels ...... 4.12-4 Table 4.12-2 - Nearest Existing Sensitive Receivers ...... 4.12-5 Table 4.12-3 - Maximum Allowed Exterior Noise Levels for Various Exposure Periods ...... 4.12-6 Table 4.12-4 - Recommended Criteria for Maximum Acceptable Noise Levels...... 4.12-7 Table 4.12-5 - Estimated One-Hour Construction Noise Exposures at Nearest Sensitive Receivers ...... 4.12-8 Table 4.12-6 - Estimated One-Hour Operational Noise Exposures at Nearest Sensitive Receivers ...... 4.12-10 Table 4.12-7 - Vibration Levels of Construction Equipment ...... 4.12-11 Table 4.16-1 - Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis Level of Service Descriptions for Signalized Intersections ...... 4.16-2 Table 4.16-2 - Project Trip Generation ...... 4.16-6 Table 4.16-3 - AM Peak Hour Level of Service at Study Area Intersections ...... 4.16-6 Table 4.16-4 - End of Work Shift Peak Hour Level of Service at Study Area Intersections ...... 4.16-7 Table 4.16-5 - PM Peak Hour Level of Service at Study Area Intersections ...... 4.16-7 Table 4.18-1 - Landfill Capacity for the City of Long Beach ...... 4.18-5 Table 7.0-1 - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ...... 7-2
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page ii Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1-1 - Project Location ...... 2-2 Figure 2. 1-2 - Regional Location...... 2-3 Figure 2.1-3 - Zoning ...... 2-4 Figure 2.1-4 - General Plan Land Uses ...... 2-5 Figure 2.3-1 - Photos of Existing Site ...... 2-6 Figure 3.3-1 - Site Plan for Existing Athletic Fields at Polytechnic High School ...... 3-3 Figure 3.3-2 - Site Plan for Proposed Athletic Fields at Polytechnic High School ...... 3-4 Figure 4.1-1 - Designated and Eligible State Scenic Highways ...... 4.1-1 Figure 4.5-1 - Topographic Map ...... 4.5-2 Figure 4.6-1 - Regionally Active Faults ...... 4.6-3 Figure 4.6-2 - Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones ...... 4.6-4 Figure 4.6-3 - Liquefaction and Landslide Hazard Zones...... 4.6-6 Figure 4.8-1 - Nearest Airport ...... 4.8-8 Figure 4.9-1 - Zone X Flood Hazard Area ...... 4.9-1 Figure 4.11-1 - Mineral Resources ...... 4.11-3 Figure 4.11-2 - Oil and Gas Fields ...... 4.11-4 Figure 4.12-1 - Noise Monitoring Locations ...... 4.12-3 Figure 4.16-1 - Study Area Intersection Locations, Geometrics and Traffic Controls ...... 4.16-4 Figure 4.16-2 - Airport Influence Area for Long Beach Airport ...... 4.16-10
APPENDICES
Appendix A MUSCO Field Lighting Assessment Appendix B Geotechnical Investigation Appendix C Historical Resources Assessment Appendix D Archeological Resources Assessment Appendix E Paleontological Resources Assessment Appendix F Joint Use Agreement No. 2499 Between LBUSD and the City of Long Beach Appendix G Species Lists Appendix H Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Calculations Appendix I Cultural Resources Inventory Appendix J Noise Study Appendix K Traffic Study Appendix L Soil Sampling Report
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page iii Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Acronym/Abbreviation Term AB Assembly Bill ADA Americans with Disabilities Act ADT Average Daily Traffic ALUC Airport Land Use Commission A.M. Ante Meridiem ANSI American National Standards Institute AQMP Air Quality Management Plan ARB Air Resources Board bgs Below the ground surface BSA Biological Survey Area BMPs Best Management Practices CAA Clean Air Act CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Cal-OSHA California Department of Industrial Relations CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery CAOs Cleanup and Abatement Orders CAPCOA California Air Pollution Controls Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board CBC California Building Code CCAA California Clean Air Act CCR California Code of Regulations CDE California Department of Education CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CDO Cease and Desist Orders CEC California Education Code CEQA California Environmental Quality Act Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and CERCLA Liability Act Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and CERCLIS Liability Information System CFCs Chlorofluorocarbons cfs Cube Feet-Per-Second CGS California Geological Survey CH4 Methane CHRIS California Historic Resources Information System City City of Long Beach CIWMP Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan CMP Congestion Management Program CHMIRS California Hazardous Material Incident Report System CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CNPS California Native Plant Society
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page iv Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Acronym/Abbreviation Term CO Carbon Monoxide CO2e CO2 equivalent CO2 Carbon Dioxide CPUC California Public Utilities Commission COPCs Chemicals of Potential Concern DAMP Drainage Area Management Plan dB Decibel dBA A-weighted decibel scale DOC Division of Oil, Gas and Thermal Resources DPM Diesel particulate matter DSA Division of State Architect DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control EI Expansion Index EIR Environmental Impact Report EISA Energy Independence and Security Act EPCRA Emergency Planning Community Right to Know Act EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPRI Electric Power Research Institute ESA Environmental Site Assessment FATES FIFRA Federal Insecticide Fungicide Rodenticide Act FEMA Federal Emergency Management Area FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zones FINDS Facility Information Detail FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FMP Facilities Management Plan FTA Federal Transit Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FRDS Federal Reporting Data System FTTS FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System FWPCA Federal Water Pollution Control Act GHG Greenhouse Gas GIS Geographic Information System GPA General Plan Amendment GPS Global Positioning System GWP Global Warming Potential HCM Highway Capacity Manual HCP Habitat Conservation Plan HFCs Hydrofluorocarbons HMBP Hazardous Materials Business Plan HS High School HSC Health and Safety Code HSWA Hazardous Solid Waste Act Hz Hertz I- Interstate ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page v Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Acronym/Abbreviation Term IEPR California's Integrated Energy Policy Report ILE Institute of Lighting Engineers IPaC Information, Planning and Conservation IPCC International Panel on Climate Change IR Interpretation of Regulations IS Initial Study ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers JWPCP Joint Water Pollution Control Plant L90 Noise Level that is exceeded 90 percent of the time at a given location Ldn Day-Night Average Noise Leq Equivalent Noise Level LBFD Long Beach Fire Department LBPD Long Beach Police Department LBUSD Long Beach Unified School District LBMC Long Beach Municipal Code LBWD Long Beach Water Department LOS Level of Service LRAs Local Responsibility Areas LRP Legally Responsible Person LSTs Localized Significance Thresholds LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program mgd Million Gallons Per Day MND Mitigated Negative Declaration MPE Maximum Probable Earthquake mph Miles Per Hour MRDS Mineral Resources Data System MRZ Mineral Resource Zone MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems permit MSL Above Mean Sea Level MT Metric Ton MWD Metropolitan Water District N2O Nitrous Oxide NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan ND Negative Declaration NHD National Hydrography Dataset NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide NOI Notice of Intent NOx Nitrogen Oxides NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page vi Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Acronym/Abbreviation Term NWI National Wetlands Inventory O3 Ozone OCPs Organochlorine Pesticides OPR Office of Planning and Research OPSC Office of Public School Construction OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PA Public Address Pb Lead PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl PCC Portland Concrete Cement PCH Pacific Coast Highway PCS Permit Compliance System PD Police Department PEA Preliminary Environmental Assessment PEL Permissible Exposure Limits PFCs Perfluorocarbons phf Peak Hour Factor P.M. Post Meridiem PM Particulate Matter PM10 Respirable Particulates PM2.5 Fine Particulate Matter ppb Parts per billion PPV Peak Particle Velocity PRC Public Resources Code PRDs Permit Registration Documents RACM Reasonably Available Control Measure RAQS Regional Air Quality Strategy RACT Reasonably Available Control Technology RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RCRIS Resource Conservation and Recovery Information Systems RECs Recognized Environmental Conditions RMP Risk Management Plan ROG Reactive Organic Gases ROSB Railroad Operations and Safety Branch RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SB 18 California Senate Bill 18 SCAB South Coast Air Basin SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCE Southern California Edison SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center SCH State Clearinghouse SEMS Standardized Emergency Management System SF6 Sulfur Hexafluoride SIA Surface Impoundments
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page vii Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Acronym/Abbreviation Term SIP California State Implementation Plan SLF Sacred Lands File SLT Screening Level Thresholds SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act SMARTS Stormwater Multi-Application and Report Tracking System SO2 Sulfur Dioxide SQG Small Quantity Generators SR- State Route SRA State Responsibility Area SRAs Source Receptor Areas SSI Supplemental Site Investigation STP Standard Temperature and Pressure SUSMP Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TAC Toxic Air Contaminant TIA Traffic Impact Analysis TCR Tribal Cultural Resources UBC Uniform Building Code UCL Upper Confidence Limit USDA United States Department of Agriculture USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey VdB Vibration Decibels VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazards Severity Zone VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled VOC Volatile Organic Compound W West WQMP Water Quality Management Plan WRI World Resources Institute WTP Water Treatment Plan ZEVs Zero Emission Vehicles § Section °F Fahrenheit
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page viii Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 INTRODUCTION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Overview
This Initial Study (IS) was prepared by UltraSystems Environmental, Inc. (UltraSystems) for the Long Beach Unified School District (District) to assess significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and implementing regulations.1 Based on the IS, the District has determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is the appropriate level of CEQA environmental documentation for this project because mitigation measures may be adopted during project construction and operation to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels.
1.2 Lead Agency
The District is the Lead Agency for this project pursuant to the CEQA and implementing regulations.2 The Lead Agency has the principal responsibility for implementing and approving a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.
The purpose of an IS under § 15063(c) of the CEQA Statute and Guidelines is to:
• Provide the Lead Agency with information necessary to decide if an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration (ND), or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) should be prepared.
• Enable a Lead Agency to modify a project to mitigate adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a ND or MND.
• Assist in the preparation of an EIR, if required, by focusing the EIR on adverse effects determined to be significant, identifying the adverse effects determined not to be significant, explaining the reasons for determining that potentially significant adverse effects would not be significant, and identifying whether a program EIR, or other process, can be used to analyze adverse environmental effects of the project.
• Facilitate an environmental assessment early during project design.
• Provide documentation in the ND or MND that a project would not have a significant effect on the environment.
• Eliminate unnecessary EIRs.
• Determine if a previously prepared EIR could be used for the project.
In cases where no potentially significant impacts are identified, the Lead Agency may issue a ND, and no mitigation measures would be needed. Where potentially significant impacts are identified, the Lead Agency may determine that mitigation measures would adequately reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. The Lead Agency would then prepare a MND for the project. If the Lead Agency determines that individual or cumulative effects of the project would cause a
1 Public Resources Code §§ 21000 - 21177 and California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3. 2. Ibid.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 1-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 INTRODUCTION significant adverse environmental effect that cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels, then the Lead Agency would require an EIR to further analyze these impacts.
1.3 Review and Comment by Other Agencies
Other public agencies are provided the opportunity to review and comment on the IS/MND. Each of these agencies is described briefly below.
• A Responsible Agency (14 CCR § 15381) is a public agency, other than the Lead Agency, that has discretionary approval power over the project, such as permit issuance or plan approval authority.
• A Trustee Agency3 (14 CCR § 15386) is a state agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project that are held in trust for the people of the State of California.
• Agencies with Jurisdiction by Law (14 CCR § 15366) are any public agencies who have authority (1) to grant a permit or other entitlement for use; (2) to provide funding for the project in question; or (3) to exercise authority over resources which may be affected by the project. Furthermore, a city or county will have jurisdiction by law with respect to a project when the city or county having primary jurisdiction over the area involved is: (1) the site of the project; (2) the area in which the major environmental effects will occur; and/or (3) the area in which reside those citizens most directly concerned by any such environmental effects.
1.4 Requirements of an Initial Study
CEQA Guidelines § 15063(d) identifies the following specific contents of an IS.
• A description and the location of the project.
• A description of the environmental setting.
• An assessment of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix, or other method, provided that entries on a checklist or other form are briefly explained to indicate that there is some evidence to support the entries. The brief explanation may be either through a narrative or a reference to another information source such as an attached map, photographs, or an earlier EIR or negative declaration. A reference to another document should include, where appropriate, a citation to the page or pages where the information is found.
• A discussion of measures to mitigate significant adverse environmental effects, if any.
• An examination of existing zoning, plans and other land use controls that apply to the project.
• The names of persons that participated in the preparation of the document.
3. The four Trustee Agencies in California listed in CEQA Guidelines § 15386 are California Department of Fish and Wildlife, State Lands Commission, State Department of Parks and Recreation, and University of California.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 1-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 INTRODUCTION
1.5 Mitigation Measures
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, § 15041, Authority to Mitigate, a lead agency for a project has authority to require feasible changes in any or all activities involved in the project in order to substantially lessen or avoid significant effects on the environment, consistent with applicable constitutional requirements such as the “nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards. As defined by 14 CCR § 15040, “feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal social, and technological factors.
If significant impacts are identified, then mitigation measures are adopted to reduce the impact to less than significant levels. Mitigation measures must meet the following criteria:
• An essential nexus (i.e., connection) must be established between the mitigation measure and a legitimate governmental interest;
• The mitigation measure must be “roughly proportional” to the impacts of the project.
There are several forms of mitigation under CEQA (§ 15370). These are summarized below.
• Avoiding the impact by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action.
• Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation.
• Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment.
• Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action.
• Compensating for the impact by replacing, or providing substitute resources for the impacted environment(s) having similar functions of equal or greater ecological value.
Avoiding impacts is the preferred form of mitigation measure, followed by minimizing and rectifying the impact to less than significant levels. Compensating for impacts would be used only when the other mitigation measures are not feasible.
Moreover, a lead agency may approve a project even though the project would cause a significant effect on the environment if the agency makes a fully informed and publicly disclosed decision that:
a) There is no feasible way to lessen or avoid the significant effect.
b) Specifically identified expected benefits from the project outweigh the policy of reducing or avoiding significant environmental impacts of the project.
1.6 Incorporation by Reference
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, § 15150, this IS/MND incorporates by reference all or portions of other technical documents that are a matter of public record. Those documents either relate to the
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 1-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 INTRODUCTION proposed project or provide additional information concerning the project’s environmental setting. Where all or a portion of another document is incorporated by reference, the incorporated language considered is described within the text of this IS/MND.
The information contained in this IS/MND (refer to Section 5.0, References) is based, in part, on the following related technical studies and/or planning documents that include the project site or provide information addressing the general project area:
• City of Long Beach General Plan adopted in 1973 with numerous supplements through 2014.4
• City of Long Beach Municipal Code, which included zoning and various development related requirements for the City.5
1.7 Organization of Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
This IS/MND is organized to satisfy CEQA requirements, and includes findings that no significant environmental impacts would occur when proposed mitigation measures are adopted. The IS/MND includes the following sections:
• Section 1.0 - Introduction, which identifies the purpose and scope of the IS/MND.
• Section 2.0 - Environmental Setting, which describes location, existing site conditions, land uses, zoning designations, topography, and vegetation associated with the project.
• Section 3.0 - Project Description, which provides an overview of the project objectives, a description of the proposed development, project phasing during construction, and discretionary actions for the approval of the project.
• Section 4.0 - Environmental Checklist, which presents checklist responses for each resource topic to identify and assess impacts associated with the proposed project, and proposes mitigation measures, where needed, to render potential environmental impacts less than significant, where feasible.
• Section 5.0 - References, which includes a list of documents cited in the IS/MND.
• Section 6.0 - List of Preparers, which identifies the primary authors and technical experts that prepared the Initial Study.
• Section 7.0 - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP), which specifies the recommended mitigation measures, the implementation stage, and the enforcement agency.
Technical studies and other documents, which include supporting information or analyses used to prepare the IS/MND, are included in the following appendices:
4 http://www.lbds.info/planning/advance_planning/general_plan.asp. Accessed July 20, 2017. 5 https://www.municode.com/library/ca/long_beach/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT18BUCO. Accessed July 20, 2017.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 1-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 INTRODUCTION
Appendix A MUSCO Field Lighting Assessment Appendix B Geotechnical Investigation Appendix C Historical Resources Assessment Appendix D Archeological Resources Assessment Appendix E Paleontological Resources Assessment Appendix F Joint Use Agreement No. 2499 Between LBUSD and the City of Long Beach Appendix G Plant and Wildlife Species Lists Appendix H Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Calculations Appendix I Cultural Resources Inventory Appendix J Noise Study Appendix K Traffic Study
1.8 Findings from the Initial Study
1.8.1 No Impacts or Impacts Considered Less than Significant
Based on IS findings, the project would have no impact or less than significant impacts to the following environmental categories listed in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.
Aesthetics Hydrology/Water Quality Agriculture/Forestry Resources Land Use/Planning Air Quality Mineral Resources Biological Resources Population Housing Cultural Resources Public Services Geology and Soils Transportation and Traffic Greenhouse Gas Emissions Tribal Cultural Resources Hazards/Hazardous Materials Utilities/Service Systems
1.8.2 Impacts Considered Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Based on IS findings, the project would have a less than significant impact on the following environmental categories listed in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines when proposed mitigation measures are adopted.
• Noise • Recreation • Mandatory Findings of Significance
1.9 Process for Adoption of MND
Prior to MND and proposed project consideration, a Notice of Intent to Adopt a MND will be provided to Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, Agencies with Jurisdiction by Law, and the public to allow 30 days to review and comment on the IS/MND.
Approval of the proposed project by the Lead Agency is contingent on adoption of the IS/MND after considering agency and public comments. By adopting the IS/MND, the Lead Agency certifies that the analyses provided in the IS/MND were reviewed and considered by the District Board of Education, and reflect its independent judgment and analysis.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 1-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2.1 Project Site
The project site is located on the grounds of the Polytechnic High School campus, which is located within the incorporated City of Long Beach in southern Los Angeles County (refer to Figure 2.1-1 and Figure 2.1-2).
The project site is designated as an Institutional Zoning District by the City of Long Beach. The area immediately to the northwest is zoned as R-3-T, Multi-family Residential for Townhouses; northeast is zoned as CHW, Regional Highway Commercial and CNR, Neighborhood Commercial and Residential; east is zoned as R-3-4, Low-density Multi-family Residential and R-3-S, Low- density Multi-family Residential, small lot; southeast is zoned as P, Park; south is zoned as R-1-N, Single-family Residential, standard lot; southwest is zoned as CO, Office Commercial; and west is zoned as I, Institutional and CO, Office Commercial (refer to Figure 2.1-3).
The project site occupies the east portion of the Polytechnic High School campus. The east portion of the campus incudes a track and field, softball field, baseball field, tennis courts, and basketball courts. Ernest McBride Park, the California Recreation Center, a Verizon office, and residential uses are to the east.
The City’s General Plan land use designations and zoning in the vicinity of the project site are listed in Table 2.1-1, and shown in Figure 2.1-3 and Figure 2.1-4, respectively.
Table 2.1-1 SUMMARY OF LAND USES AND ZONING
EXISTING AREA GENERAL PLAN ZONING EXISTING USE LAND USE 15 permanent buildings, 1 bungalow building and 26 relocatable Polytechnic Institutional I-Institutional (portable) buildings, softball and High School baseball fields, a track and field, and tennis and basketball courts. R-3-T, Multi-family Residential for Townhomes and Townhouses, CHW, Regional North Traditional Retail Highway Commercial, CNR, Townhomes and commercial retail Strip Commercial Neighborhood Commercial and Residential R-3-4, Low-density Residential Moderate Density Multi-family and R-3-S, Low- Open space, recreation, residential, East Residential, Park density multi-family, small lot, and and business offices P, Park Mixed I, Institutional and CO, Office West Retail/Residential Elementary school, residential Commercial Strip Single Family South R-1-N-Single Family Single family residences Residential
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 2-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Figure 2.1-1 PROJECT LOCATION
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 2-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Figure 2.1-2 REGIONAL LOCATION
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 2-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Figure 2.1-3 ZONING
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 2-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Figure 2.1-4 GENERAL PLAN LAND USES
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 2-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2.2 Former Uses
The property was developed as part of a school campus in 1911.6 The project site was originally part of a large vacant parcel that was later sub-divided into smaller parcels.7 Around approximately 1928, the site was likely graded/developed and in 1935 an auditorium was built on site. The existing portable classroom structures located on site were constructed between the years 1930 and 1989.
2.3 Existing Site Conditions
Polytechnic High School campus is currently developed with 15 permanent buildings, one bungalow building, 26 relocatable (portable) buildings, a softball field, a baseball field, a track and field, six tennis courts, and five basketball courts. An existing surface parking lot located in the northwestern portion of the school campus provides ample parking for the athletic fields located on campus. Project site photographs are provided in Figure 2.3-1.
Figure 2.3-1 PHOTOS OF EXISTING SITE
Photo 1: View of existing track and field that would Photo 2: Existing tennis courts that would be be replaced with artificial turf. relocated to the north of the track and field.
6 Cultural Resources Assessment for Long Beach Unified School District. Prepared by PCR Services Corporation. January 2017. 7 http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/deliverable_documents/9941131412/SSI%20Rpt%20- %20Long%20Beach%20Polytech%20HS.pdf. Accessed July 28, 2017.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 2-6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Photo 3: View of existing portable buildings that Photo 4: View of existing softball field that would would be relocated to the east of the track and field. be replaced with artificial turf.
Photo 5: View of Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue, east Photo 6: Residential homes along Martin Luther of the project site. King Jr. Avenue, east of the project site.
2.4 Climate and Air Quality
The annual average temperature in Long Beach is approximately 64 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), and annual average total precipitation is approximately 12 inches, which occurs mostly during the winter. Winds in this region are generally light, tempered by afternoon sea breezes.8
The project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), a 6,600-square-mile area encompassing all of Orange County and the non‐desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. Based on regional monitoring data and the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), the SCAB is currently designated as an extreme nonattainment area for 8-hour ozone (O3); attainment for nitrogen dioxide (NO2); serious maintenance for carbon monoxide (CO); maintenance for particulate matter PM10; nonattainment for lead (Pb); moderate nonattainment for particulate matter PM2.5; and attainment for sulfur dioxide (SO2).9
The SCAB is currently designated nonattainment for ozone (O3) and particulate matter PM10 and PM2.5; attainment for carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), sulfates,
8 http://www.climate-zone.com/climate/united-states/california/long-beach/. Accessed July 12, 2017. 9 https://www.epa.gov/green-book/. Accessed July 13, 2017.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 2-7 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
and lead (Pb); and unclassified for hydrogen sulfides and visibility reducing particles under the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS).10
2.5 Geologic and Soil Setting
The project site is located in the Central Block of the Los Angeles Basin. The Los Angeles Basin is a northwest trending synclinal depression at the southern extent of the Transverse Ranges and north extent of the Peninsular Range Geomorphic Provinces of California. The Central Block is bounded by the active Newport Inglewood Fault Zone and the active Whittier Fault Zone located approximately one mile (1.6 km) and 16 miles (25 km) northeast of the project site. Native geologic and soil units beneath the project site are sands, silt and clays of Pleistocene alluvial and terrace deposits of the Long Beach plain.11
Groundwater was not encountered to a depth of approximately 16 inches below the ground surface (bgs), which was the maximum depth explored during the 2017 geotechnical pre-construction investigation. Based on local groundwater levels reported for wells in the vicinity of the project site, water levels have historically ranged from approximately 9.7 to 56.2 feet bgs (ASE, 2017).
2.6 Project Topography and Hydrology
The project site is relatively flat at an elevation of approximately 30 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The site is within the lower Los Angeles River Watershed, which is under the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The nearest river is the Los Angeles River approximately 1.2 miles to the west and the nearest surface water body is a drainage system located approximately 1.5 miles to the northeast. Surface runoff from the project site generally flows to the southeast and enters storm drains along the eastern property boundary.
2.7 Biological Setting
The project site is located within an urban area, which provides low habitat value for special-status plant and wildlife species. Ornamental vegetation and structures within the project site could potentially provide cover and nesting habitat for bird species that have adapted to urban areas.
10 State Area Designations. https://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm/. Accessed July 13, 2017. 11 http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fwgp/Documents/plate8_long_beach.pdf/. Accessed July 21, 2017.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 2-8 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 Project Overview
The Long Beach Unified School District (District) proposes the improvement and modernization of the existing athletic field facilities located at the Polytechnic High School site in the City of Long Beach, California. The proposed project would facilitate and enhance the functionality of the football, soccer, track, tennis, and softball facilities located on the school campus. The project would be completed in two phases: immediate improvements and future improvements.
The proposed improvements to the athletic fields would be partially funded by Measure K Bond Program funds that implement the priorities identified in the LBUSD’s 2008 Facilities Management Plan (FMP).12 The FMP includes the following six principles that guide development of the District’s facilities:
• Creating learning environments to meet schools for the next generation. • Renovating and replacing aging infrastructure. • Declining enrollment and elimination of portables and bungalows. • Changing the size and type of high schools. • Joint use. • School safety and security.
The LBUSD would utilize Measure K Bond Program funds along with other resources to phase project activities utilizing $1.2 billion in funds that have been generated from a series of bonds that were issued over the last 20 to 25 years.13
Polytechnic High School serves a student population of approximately 3,955 in grades 9 through 12, and employs 261 faculty and administrative staff members.14 The proposed project would not increase student capacity at the school and would not involve temporary relocation of students or staff during construction. The school was built in the late 1930s. Currently, 15 permanent buildings, one bungalow building and 26 relocatable (portable) buildings are located on the school campus. Existing athletic facilities within the school campus include a baseball field, a softball field, a football/soccer field, a running track, tennis courts and surface courts for basketball and volleyball. Athletic programs are a priority at the Polytechnic High School as they are a source for academic scholarships for at least one-third of the student population.
3.2 Project Location
The proposed athletic field improvements (hereafter “project site”) are located on the campus of the Polytechnic High School in Long Beach, California. The City of Long Beach is an incorporated city in Los Angeles County. Polytechnic High School is located at 1600 Atlantic Avenue. The proposed school site is located in an urban area and is surrounded by a mix of commercial and residential uses. The campus is situated just south of Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) between Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and Atlantic Avenue. McBride Park and the California Recreation Center are located across Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard to the east of the project site. To the south, the site is bounded by East 15th and primarily residential development beyond. Primary vehicular
12 http://lbschoolbonds.net/pdfs/LBUSD-Facilty-Master-Plan-Update-2016.pdf. 13 Ibid. 14 2008 - Poly Fact Sheet. http://lbpoly.schoolloop.com/Accolades.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 3-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
access to the site is provided from Jackrabbit Lane that is connected to Atlantic Avenue located along the western boundary of the site. Restricted access to the site is also provided from East 15th Street. Refer to Section 2.0 for a detailed description of the project’s existing environmental setting.
3.3 Proposed Project
3.3.1 Project Design Features
The proposed project involves improvements to existing sports and athletic field facilities located on the Polytechnic High School campus. The existing athletic fields would be reconfigured, resurfaced and relocated to implement the LBUSD FMP guiding principles regarding renovation and replacement of aging infrastructure, school safety and security and creation of school environments that serve the needs of the next generation.
The project proposes to make several improvements to the athletic fields/sports area located along Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, in the eastern part of the campus. Existing sports fields located on campus include a baseball field in the northeastern corner, a track and field facility with bleachers, basketball courts, and a softball field and tennis courts along the southeastern edge of the campus. Figure 3.3-1 shows the layout of existing sports and athletic fields located on campus. The various proposed improvements are intended to be completed in several phases over the next three to eight years and incorporate the following:
Immediate Scope: Phase I
• Replacement of existing track and field with a new synthetic track and field used for football, soccer and athletics. • Replacement of the existing scoreboard with a new scoreboard. • Provision of new exterior sports field lighting for potential evening use of the track and field facility. The new sports lighting would include installation of four new 80-90 feet high light poles on the eastern and western sides of the track.
Future Scope: Phase 2
• Relocation of existing relocatable (portable) structures located to the north of the existing track to an area along the eastern boundary of the campus. • Relocation of existing tennis courts located along the southeastern edge of the campus to an area currently occupied by portable structures, north of the existing track and field. • Replacement of the existing softball field with a new synthetic softball field. • Construction of a new 50-meter outdoor athletic pool with security lighting and a public address (PA) system. The new pool would be located in the southeastern corner of the campus in an area currently occupied by tennis courts.
A conceptual site plan showing proposed project features is provided in Figure 3.3-2.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 3-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Figure 3.3-1 SITE PLAN FOR EXISTING ATHLETIC FIELDS AT POLYTECHNIC HIGH SCHOOL
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 3-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Figure 3.3-2 SITE PLAN FOR PROPOSED ATHLETIC FIELDS AT POLYTECHNIC HIGH SCHOOL
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 3-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The proposed project would be designed and constructed in accordance with the requirements of the latest version of the California Building Code (CBC) for the construction of public school buildings and the recommendations outlined in the Division of the State Architect (DSA)’s Interpretation of Regulations (IR). The IRs were created by DSA as an acceptable method for achieving compliance with applicable building codes and regulations including structural design, relocatable buildings, fire resistive building materials, fire alarms, fire suppression equipment, safe occupant egress, and firefighting equipment access. Compliance with these standards and code requirements would ensure implementation of structural safety, fire protection, energy efficient design, water conservation measures, and will aid in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
Project Access and Parking
Public access to the high school campus and existing sports and athletic fields is currently provided from Jackrabbit Lane that connected to Atlantic Avenue located along the western boundary of the site. East 15th Street also provides restricted access to the campus. At project completion, campus access, traffic circulation, drop-off and pick-up locations, and vehicular parking areas would remain the same as the existing campus.
Parking requirements for the site were based on Title 21 (Zoning Regulations) of the City’s Municipal Code. The Municipal Code does not specify parking requirements for parks or sports fields. The proposed project would not change the allocation of parking on the high school campus. Ample parking spaces would be available within existing surface parking lots located on campus to accommodate the parking needs of the project. Additionally, the proposed school site is located in a primarily single-family residential area and streets surrounding the project site would also have ample on-street parking available before and after school hours.
Landscaping/Resurfacing
The proposed project would utilize synthetic surfacing material for the majority of the sports and athletic fields and courts. Landscaping would be provided along the eastern boundary of the athletic facility, where the portable structures are proposed to be relocated. After construction, the impervious area within the project site would remain similar to existing conditions. Landscaping changes would include landscaped pathways with small planters, connecting the improved sports and athletic fields.
Utility Improvements
The proposed project would install new electrical lines, as required to ensure adequate electrical supply for the proposed sports and security lighting, new athletic pool, and relocation of portable structures and tennis courts. The project would also install new water/irrigation lines for the improved sports fields and planting areas.
Site Security, Safety and Lighting
Currently, the Polytechnic High School campus is mostly secured by fencing along the boundaries. Following project implementation, the campus would remain secured with the majority of the campus being fenced or gated. New exterior sports field lighting would be installed for potential evening use of the track and field facility. Additionally, security lighting would be installed, as required, to alleviate safety concerns. Security lighting would include lighting fixtures designed to
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 3-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
reduce glare, light trespass, and sky glow. Outdoor lighting will be designed and installed to confine lighting to the proposed project site, and will not illuminate adjacent properties.
3.3.2 Schedule of Operation
The proposed project will operate throughout the year. Standard hours of operation will be from 7:50 a.m. to 2:40 p.m., Monday through Friday for Polytechnic High School students. Pursuant to a joint use agreement between the District and the City of Long Beach, the improved sports and athletic fields would also be available for public use. The District would have exclusive use of the sports facilities during school hours. The site would be available for public use after school hours.
The improved sports and athletic fields may be used for organized sports activities during school and after hours. However, total number of sports events held at the project site would remain similar to existing conditions. No additional events are anticipated as a result of proposed improvements and addition of new sports lighting.
3.4 Construction Activities and Schedule
As previously described, construction of the proposed project would occur in two phases. Construction activities for the proposed athletic fields’ improvements are anticipated to last approximately eight years. Most of the proposed improvements are anticipated to be completed over three years (from 2017 to 2020), with the exception of the athletic pool. It is anticipated that construction at the project site would begin in the fourth quarter of 2017. The timeline for proposed improvements is provided below.
• Track and field improvements – December 2017 to May 2018. • Relocation of portable buildings – June 2018 to August 2018. • Installation of sports lighting – June 2018 to September 2018. • Relocation of tennis courts – October 2018 to January 2019. • Softball field and surface court improvements – June 2020 to September 2020. • Construction of athletic pool – June 2025 to May 2026.
Construction would begin with the removal of the existing track and athletic field and scoreboard. Debris would then be hauled away to an appropriate landfill or recycling facility that accepts construction and demolition waste. Following the removal of the existing track and field, a new synthetic track and field, a new scoreboard and sports lighting would be installed.
Construction access would be provided through the existing surface streets adjacent to the project site. Construction equipment would include an excavator, a tractor-mounted front-end loader, a grader, a roller compactor, a bobcat, crushing equipment, a paver, and delivery and dump trucks. Construction staging would occur within the boundaries of the site and would be separated from the rest of the school campus by construction fencing. No construction would occur within the portion of the campus that consists of classroom and administrative buildings. The District’s construction contractor would prepare and comply with a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), including site specific best management practices (BMPs) for erosion and sediment control, as required by the State Water Resources Control Board’s General Construction Permit.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 3-6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
3.5 Reviewing Agencies
The following agencies would be provided an opportunity to review the IS for compliance with applicable requirements, and to submit written comments, if any, to the Lead Agency.
State
• California Office of Planning and Research – State Clearinghouse. • Native American Heritage Commission. • Department of Conservation. • California Department of Fish and Wildlife. • Department of General Services. • Department of Health Services. • Office of Emergency Services. • State Water Resources Control Board.
Regional and Local
City of Long Beach Fire Department. City of Long Beach Development Services Department. • City of Long Beach Police Department. • City of Long Beach Water Department. • 3.6 Discretionary Actions
Following Lead Agency approval of this IS (refer to Section 1.0), the following approvals would be required prior to construction.
AGENCY PERMIT OR APPROVAL California Division of the State Architect (DSA) Approval of site plans California Regional Water Quality Control Board Issuance of National Pollutant Discharge – Los Angeles Elimination (NPDES) permit South Coast Air Quality Management District Issuance of applicable air quality permits City of Long Beach Fire Department Approval of emergency access City of Long Beach Water Department Approval of utility improvements
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 3-7 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Special Requirements under the State School Facility Program
In addition to the CEQA Guidelines, primary and secondary public schools have several additional requirements established by the California Code of Regulations and California Education Code. Table 4.1-1 identifies the specific health and safety requirements for a state-funded new school or a state-funded addition to an existing school site. These health and safety requirements are outlined in the California Department of Education (CDE) School Site Selection and Approval Guide. The analyses and response is included under the relevant section identified in the table below.
Table 4.1-1 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SCHOOL SITE SELECTION AND APPROVAL
ENVIRONMENTAL TOPIC APPLICABLE CODE CHECKLIST
AIR QUALITY
Is the boundary of the proposed school site within 500 feet of PRC § 21151.8(a)(1)(D); the edge of the closest traffic lane of a freeway or busy traffic Section 4.3 Air Quality, Ed. Code corridor? If yes, would the project create an air quality health Question (f) § 17213(c)(2)(C) risk due to the placement of the School?
Would the project create an air quality hazard due to the placement of a school within one-quarter mile of: (a) permitted and non-permitted facilities identified by the jurisdictional air quality control board or air pollution control PRC § 21151.8 (a)(2); Section 4.3 Air Quality, district; (b) freeways and other busy traffic corridors; (c) large Ed. Code § 17213 (b) Question (g) agricultural operations; and/or (d) a rail yard, which might reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous air emissions, or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous material, substances, or waste?
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Does the site contain an active earthquake fault or fault trace, or is the site located within the boundaries of any special CCR, Title 5 § 14010(f); Section 4.6 Geology and studies zone or within an area designated as geologically Ed. Code, § 17212 Soils, Question (a) i) hazardous in the safety element of the local general plan?
Would the project involve the construction, reconstruction, or Section 4.6 Geology and relocation of any school building on a site subject to moderate- CCR, Title 5 § 14010(i) Soils, Question (a) ii) to-high liquefaction?
Would the project involve the construction, reconstruction, or Section 4.6 Geology and relocation of any school building on a site subject to CCR, Title 5 § 14010(i) Soils, Question (a) iv) landslides?
Would the project involve the construction, reconstruction, or relocation of any school building on the trace of a geological CCR, Title 5 § 14010(f); Section 4.6 Geology and fault along which surface rupture can reasonably be expected Ed. Code § 17212 Soils, Question (a) i) to occur within the life of the school building?
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ENVIRONMENTAL TOPIC APPLICABLE CODE CHECKLIST
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Is the property line of the proposed school site less than the Section 4.8 Hazards and following distances from the edge of respective powerline CCR, Title 5 § 14010(c) Hazardous Materials, easements: (1) 100 feet of a 50-133 kV line; (2) 150 feet of a Question (j) 220-230 kV line; or (3) 350 feet of a 500-550 kV line?
Is the proposed school site located near an aboveground water Section 4.8 Hazards and or fuel storage tank or within 1,500 feet of an easement of an CCR, Title 5 § 14010(h) Hazardous Materials, aboveground or underground pipeline that can pose a safety Question (i) hazard to the site? Section 4.8 Hazards and Is the proposed school site situated within 2,000 feet of a CCR, Title 5 § 14010(t) Hazardous Materials, significant disposal of hazardous waste? Question (g)
Does the proposed school site contain one or more pipelines, situated underground or aboveground, which carry hazardous Section 4.8 Hazards and substances, acutely hazardous materials, or hazardous wastes, PRC § 21151.8 (a)(1)(C) Hazardous Materials, unless the pipeline is a natural gas line that is used only to Question (h) supply natural gas to that school or neighborhood?
Is the school site in an area designated in a city, county, or city and county general plan for agricultural use and zoned for agricultural production, and if so, do neighboring agricultural Section 4.8 Hazards and uses have the potential to result in any public health and safety Ed. Code § 17215.5 (a) Hazardous Materials, issues that may affect the pupils and employees at the school Question (p) site? (Does not apply to school sites approved by CDE prior to January 1, 1997.)
Does the project site contain a current or former hazardous Section 4.8 Hazards and waste disposal site or solid waste disposal site and, if so, have PRC § 21151.8 (a)(1)(A) Hazardous Materials, the wastes been removed? Question (e)
Is the project site a hazardous substance release site identified by the state Department of Health Services in a current list Section 4.8 Hazards and adopted pursuant to §25356 for removal or remedial action PRC § 21151.8 (a)(1)(B) Hazardous Materials, pursuant to Chapter 6.8 of Division 20 of the Health and Safety Question (d) Code?
If prepared, has the risk assessment been performed with a Section 4.8 Hazards and focus on children’s health posed by a hazardous materials Ed. Code § 17210.1 Hazardous Materials, release or threatened release, or the presence of naturally (a)(3) Question (c) occurring hazardous materials on the school site?
If a response action is necessary and proposed as part of this Section 4.8 Hazards and Ed. Code § 17210.1 project, has it been developed to be protective of children’s Hazardous Materials, (a)(4) health, with an ample margin of safety? Question (s)
Is the proposed school site within two miles, measured by air line, of that point on an airport runway or potential runway Section 4.8 Hazards and Ed. Code § 17215 included in an airport master plan that is nearest to the site? Hazardous Materials, (a)&(b) (Does not apply to school sites acquired prior to January 1, Question (k & l) 1966.)
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ENVIRONMENTAL TOPIC APPLICABLE CODE CHECKLIST
HYRDOLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Section 4.9 Hydrology CCR, Title 5 § 14010(g); Is the project site subject to flooding or dam inundation? and Water Quality, Ed. Code § 17212; Question (k)
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the proposed school conflict with any existing or Section 4.10 Land Use proposed land uses, such that a potential health or safety risk CCR, Title 5 § 14010(m) and Planning, Question to students would be created? (d)
NOISE
Is the proposed school site located adjacent to or near a major Section 4.12 Noise, arterial roadway or freeway whose noise generation may CCR, Title 5 § 14010(e) Question (g) adversely affect the education program?
PUBLIC SERVICES
Does the site promote joint use of parks, libraries, museums, Section 4.14 Public CCR, Title 5 § 14010(o) and other public services? Services, Question (f)
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Section 4.16 Is the proposed school site within 1,500 feet of a railroad track CCR, Title 5 § 14010(d) Transportation and easement? Traffic, Question (g)
Is the site easily accessible from arterials and is the minimum Section 4.16 peripheral visibility maintained for driveways per Caltrans' CCR, Title 5 § 14010(k) Transportation and Highway Design Manual? Traffic, Question (h)
Section 4.16 Are traffic and pedestrian hazards mitigated per Caltrans' Transportation and CCR, Title 5 § 14010(l) School Area Pedestrian Safety manual? Traffic, Question (a) and (d)
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
(1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors, as well as general standards (e.g., the project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project- specific screening analysis).
(2) All answers must take into account the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
(3) After the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
(4) “Negative Declaration: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to less than significant level.
(5) Earlier analyses may be use where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an affect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. (See § 15063(c)(3)(D) of the CEQA Guidelines. In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
(a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where the earlier analysis available for review.
(b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
(c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site- specific conditions for the project.
(6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
attached and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
(7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
(8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
(9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
(a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
(b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4-6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 AESTHETICS
4.1 Aesthetics
Less than Potentially Significant Less than No Would the project: Significant Impact with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a X scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, X outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site X
and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect X
day or nighttime views in the area?
A “visual environment” includes the built environment (development patterns, buildings, parking areas, and circulation elements) and natural environment (such as hills, vegetation, rock outcroppings, drainage pathways, and soils) features. Visual quality, viewer groups and sensitivity, duration, and visual resources characterize views. Visual quality refers to the general aesthetic quality of a view, such as vividness, intactness, and unity. Viewer groups identify who is most likely to experience the view. High-sensitivity land uses include residences, schools, playgrounds, religious institutions, and passive outdoor spaces such as parks, playgrounds, and recreation areas. Duration of a view is the amount of time that a particular view can be seen by a specific viewer group. Visual resources refer to unique views, and views identified in local plans, from scenic highways, or of specific unique structures or landscape features.
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
No Impact
Topography in the City of Long Beach is relatively flat with scenic vistas of the Ocean and Palos Verdes in the southern part and western parts of the City. View from public roadways, thoroughfares and open spaces in the City include distant views of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains to the north and Santa Monica Mountains to the east.
The proposed project is located in a developed urban area in the southern part of the City. The project proposes the improvement and modernization of existing athletic fields on the grounds of an existing high school campus. The City of Long Beach General Plan does not identify scenic vistas in the project area. Distant views of the San Gabriel, San Bernardino or Santa Monica Mountains, and the Pacific Ocean are not available from public thoroughfares and developments surrounding the project site. The project will not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista because there are no scenic vistas in the area.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.1-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 AESTHETICS
b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Less Than Significant Impact
The project site does not contain notable visual resources such as rock outcroppings, trees, or historic buildings. According to the California Department of Transportation, the project site is not located in the vicinity of an officially designated or eligible state scenic highway, designated as part of the California Scenic Highway Program. The closest eligible state scenic highway is a portion of State Route 1 (Pacific Coast Highway) located approximately two miles east of the proposed project site.15 Refer to Figure 4.1-1.
The City of Long Beach Scenic Routes Element16 depicts a system of scenic routes and corridors which may have merit for inclusion in a designated system, establishes criteria and design standards to protect scenic corridors, and identifies scenic assets of historical, cultural, recreational, industrial and aesthetic importance. The City of Long Beach Mobility Element (adopted in 2013) provides information on street classification and scenic routes in the City. The Long Beach Mobility Element, classifies streets within the City as freeways, regional corridors, boulevards, major avenues and minor avenues, and identifies boulevards and regional corridors as likely and possible scenic routes.17 Pacific Coast Highway located in immediate proximity of the site to the north is a regional corridor and therefore, a possible local scenic route. The proposed project is located in a developed urban area and involves improvement of existing athletic fields on campus. The project does not propose construction of new buildings or structures that would significantly change views from Pacific Coast Highway. Other streets located in immediate proximity of the project site comprise a major avenue (Atlantic Avenue), a neighborhood connector (Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue) and local streets. The nearest locally designated scenic route is Ocean Boulevard which is located approximately 1.5 miles south of the project site.18
The project would be consistent with the City’s General Plan (2035) and Zoning Ordinances which impose development guidelines and standards to preserve scenic resources and reduce the obstruction of public views from locally designated scenic highways. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
15 http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/. Accessed August 2, 2017. 16 City of Long Beach Scenic Routes Element, Adopted 1975. 17 City of Long Beach Mobility Element, Adopted 2013. 18 Ibid.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.1-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 AESTHETICS
Figure 4.1-1 DESIGNATED AND ELIGIBLE STATE SCENIC HIGHWAYS
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.1-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 AESTHETICS
c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
Less than Significant Impact
The project site is located in an urban setting characterized by a mix of single family and multi- family residential buildings on all sides, commercial retail development to the north and an existing high school to the west. Most buildings appear well maintained and in good condition. Views of the existing streetscape include maintained sidewalks with tree lined streets. Street lights, and utility poles and cables are visible along the street frontage.
Direct views of the project site are available from Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue and East 15th Street, and to a lesser extent available from Pacific Coast Highway when not obstructed by intervening features such as commercial developments located immediately north of the site.
The proposed project would involve both temporary and permanent changes to the visual character of the site and its surroundings. Temporary changes are associated with construction activities, including construction equipment, staging, and site construction. These visual impacts would be short-term in nature and are anticipated to be less than significant.
Implementation of the proposed project would result in long-term/permanent changes to the visual character of the site due to the proposed track and field improvements, relocation of existing portable structures and tennis courts, construction of a new athletic pool and installation of new sports lighting including 80-90 feet high light poles. These changes would be visually compatible with the existing visual character of the surrounding area. While the proposed project would result in a change to the existing visual character of the site, it would not result in the removal or degradation of any significant visual resources and would be consistent in appearance to the existing and adjacent campus land uses. For this reason, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on the visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.
d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
The following discussion is based on a photometric analysis conducted by the project lighting system designer, Musco Lighting (Musco 2017) and provided in Appendix A of this Initial Study.
Less than Significant Impact
The project site is located in an urbanized area that contains a variety of artificial lighting sources in the form of sports field lighting, street lights, security lights, and landscape lighting. The proposed project would install four new 90 feet high pole structures with sports lighting fixtures along the eastern and western edges of the improved track and field. Additionally, sports and security lighting (including light poles with heights varying between 50 feet to 80 feet), would also be installed in other areas on site including the improved softball and baseball fields, proposed new athletic pool and relocated tennis courts. Refer to Appendix A for a detailed listing of the proposed lighting system features including number, location and height of light poles and lighting fixtures.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.1-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 AESTHETICS
According to the Institution of Lighting Engineers (ILE)19 and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)20, light trespass21 varies according to surrounding environmental characteristics. Areas that are more rural in character, and therefore have few existing artificial sources of light, are more susceptible to impacts resulting from the installation of new artificial lighting sources. In contrast, urbanized areas are characterized by a large number of existing artificial lighting sources and are thus less susceptible to adverse effects associated with new artificial lighting sources.
In order to determine appropriate lighting standards that are reflective of the existing lighting conditions, land uses are typically categorized into one of four environmental zones. The project site and surrounding area can be characterized as an area of medium ambient brightness (E3 environmental zone).22, 23
Based on these environmental zones, the ILE and EPRI have established recommendations for limiting light trespass onto adjacent properties. The recommendations established by the ILE are summarized in Table 4.1-2.
Table 4.1-2 OBTRUSIVE LIGHT LIMITATIONS FOR EXTERIOR LIGHTING INSTALLATIONS
Light Trespass Illuminance Environmental Zone Pre-Curfew (Dusk – Post Curfew (11:00 p.m. – 11:00 p.m.) 7:00 a.m.) ILE E1 2 lx 0.2 fc 1 lx 0.1 fc E2 5 lx 0.5 fc 1 lx 0.1 fc E3 10 lx 0.9 fc 2 lx 0.2 fc E4 25 lx 2.3 fc 5 lx 0.5 fc EPRI E1 1 lx 0.1 fc 1 lx 0.1 fc E2 3 lx 0.3 fc 1 lx 0.1 fc E3 9 lx 0.8 fc 3 lx 0.3 fc E4 16 lx 1.5 fc 7 lx 0.6 fc lx = lux fc = foot-candles Source: Adopted from ILE (2003) and EPRI (2000)24
In the project area, light trespass impacts would be considered potentially significant if illuminance25 produced by the project would impact sensitive receptors with lighting levels that
19 Institute of Lighting Engineers, Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Light Pollution, 2003, Available online at: https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Planning%20and%20building/SPG%20Lightpollution%202002.pdf, Accessed: August 2017. 20 Electric Power Research Institute, Light Trespass Research, 2000, Available online at: https://www.epri.com/#/pages/product/TR-114914/, Accessed: August 2017. 21 Light trespass (also known as obtrusive light or spill light) is the condition where poorly shielded or poorly aimed light fixtures cast light onto areas where it is unwanted or not needed. 22 Institute of Lighting Engineers, Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Light Pollution, 2003. https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Planning%20and%20building/SPG%20Lightpollution%202002.pdf, Accessed August 2017. 23 Electric Power Research Institute, Light Trespass Research, 2000. https://www.epri.com/#/pages/product/TR- 114914/. Accessed August 2017. 24 Ibid. 25 Measured in foot-candles, illuminance is the intensity of light falling on a surface.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.1-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 AESTHETICS
exceed 0.8 foot-candles during pre-curfew hours (dusk to 11:00 pm) and 0.2 foot-candles during the post-curfew hours (11:00 pm to 7:00 am), as measured on the vertical and horizontal planes.26
Sky Glow27
The project site is located approximately 30 miles southeast of the Griffith Observatory in an urbanized area of Long Beach and would therefore have very low potential to impact operations at the observatory. The proposed project would result in the erection of four 90-foot-tall sports light standards with multiple lighting fixtures on the east and west sides of the existing track and field (Locations F1, F2, F3 and F4; refer to Appendix A). Additionally, the project would also install sports and security lighting (including light poles with heights varying between 50 feet to 80 feet), in other areas on site including the improved softball and baseball fields, proposed new athletic pool and relocated tennis courts.
The height of the proposed light poles would allow for each luminaire to be mounted with a narrow beam angle, which would focus light downward. In addition, the proposed luminaires would feature a highly efficient reflector and visor; the reflector would focus light towards the athletic fields, while the visor would minimize upward light. These design features would minimize sky glow to the maximum extent feasible. Based on the physical characteristics of the area surrounding the project site and the design of the proposed light fixtures, implementation of the project would result in less than significant impacts associated with sky glow.
Glare28
The proposed project would introduce new outdoor artificial lighting elements, which have the potential to result in glare if the main beams of proposed lighting elements (i.e., the portion of the lamp with the greatest illuminance) are visible from offsite locations, resulting in excessive, uncontrolled brightness. However, many of the same design features that would minimize sky glow, would also minimize glare impacts.
The high mounting heights of the light fixtures would allow the light fixtures to be aimed at a steep angle that would focus the main beam of the lamp onto the field of play. In addition, the light fixtures would feature a reflective insert that would further focus the main beam of the lamp onto the field of play. Furthermore, each light fixture would be fitted with a visor that would minimize and/or block a direct line of sight to the main beam of the lamp from offsite locations. Although new sources of outdoor artificial light would be introduced into the community, the design of the proposed lighting system would ensure that offsite residential land uses and motorists, including motorists along Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue and other nearby roadways, would not be exposed to excessive, uncontrolled brightness. Therefore, potential project impacts related to glare would be less than significant.
26 A full moonlit night in rural areas with negligible ambient light would equal approximately 0.02-0.03 foot-candles, while a typical 30-foot tall street lamp would have an illumination of 1.3 foot-candles at a distance of 10 feet. Source: National Lighting Product Information Program, Publication on Light Pollution, Updated 2007, Available online at: http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/programs/nlpip/lightinganswers/pdf/print/LightPollution.pdf, Accessed: August 2017. 27 Sky Glow is the brightening of the sky that occurs as a result of outdoor lighting fixtures emitting a portion of their light directly into the sky. Sky glow is of particular concern near observatories and in rural areas where there is low ambient light. 28 Glare is the objectionable brightness caused by over-illumination, as well as poorly shielded or poorly aimed light fixtures.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.1-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 AESTHETICS
Light Trespass
The proposed artificial lighting system has been specifically designed to minimize light trespass. As described above, the high mounting height of the luminaires would allow the lamps to be installed with a narrow beam angle to direct light downward, onto the fields of play, and away from adjacent residential properties. In addition, each luminaire would feature a reflective insert and an external visor, which would capture and redirect primary light onto the field and would result in less spill light off-field.
The proposed sports lighting system would be used to illuminate the activities of the athletic fields that may occur during non-daylight hours. There is the potential for the fields to host additional evening events on a regular basis, including routine practices, playoff games, and/or community events. Based on the schedules for existing sports events and operational characteristics at Polytechnic High School,29 it is anticipated that field lighting would be completely extinguished by approximately 10:30 p.m. In no case would the artificial lighting elements for the field be used between 11:00 p.m. and dawn.
Areas immediately surrounding the project site have the potential to be adversely affected by light trespass effects associated with the project’s proposed lighting elements. Potential impacts on surrounding residential properties are addressed below.
Vertical and Horizontal Illuminance
The photometric analysis (refer to Appendix A) includes photometric modeling showing projected levels of vertical and horizontal spill light at the “edge of spill line” for the proposed lighting elements. Light sensitive receptors that have the potential to be significantly impacted by project lighting elements include the residential developments located in the immediate vicinity to the east and south of the project site.
It is important to note that the modeled illumination levels do not account for reductions in lighting intensity caused by intervening structures, topography, and/or landscaping. However, the lighting levels do account for distance; specifically, as one approaches the nearby residential homes and as the distance from the proposed lighting poles increases, lighting intensity would decrease at a rate of approximately 75% for each doubling of distance. Additionally, when two lighting sources are combined, the resulting illuminance only significantly increases if the individual lighting sources have similar lighting intensity at the point of observation when viewed individually.
Pre-Curfew Impacts
The lighting levels from the proposed project at the spill line would range from 0.00 to 2.46 vertical foot-candles. Although there are areas along the edges of the project site where vertical illuminance would exceed the threshold of 0.8 foot-candle, it should be noted that these measurements do not account for existing walls, fences or landscape features. It is unlikely that operation of the proposed lighting system would result in significant adverse impacts related to light trespass. In urbanized locations, the most common adverse effect of light trespass is disruption of sleep. Although the proposed project would create spill light that would result in light trespass during pre-curfew hours, it is anticipated that the lighting would be extinguished by 10:30 p.m. The nearby residential
29 http://www.lbschools.net/Departments/High_Schools/sports_schedules.cfm, Accessed: August 2017.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.1-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 AESTHETICS
areas are located in an area of medium ambient brightness; therefore, the small increase in light trespass during a few nighttime sports events would be considered a less than significant impact.
The lighting levels from the proposed project at the spill line would range from 0.00 to 0.69 horizontal foot-candles. Therefore, the horizontal illuminance levels would not exceed the threshold of 0.8 foot-candles and project impacts related to light trespass would be less than significant.
Post-Curfew Impacts
In the event that the proposed lighting system were in operation during post-curfew hours (11:00 pm to 7:00 am), both horizontal and vertical light trespass levels would be expected to exceed the 0.2 foot-candles threshold of significance; however, lighting elements would normally be extinguished by approximately 10:30 pm. The number of evening games is expected to be similar to existing conditions. Due to routine practices and the potential for unforeseen events, such as playoff games, a few more events may occur under certain circumstances. Because lighting elements would be extinguished by approximately 10:30 pm, the potential for sleep disturbance would be avoided and light trespass impacts during post-curfew hours would be less than significant.
Based on the photometric analysis provided in Appendix A, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to sky glow, glare or light trespass, due to the highly urban character of the project area, the proposed design of the lighting system, and the existing features around the project site. In addition, all field lighting elements would be extinguished by 10: 30 p.m. to avoid light trespass impacts during post-curfew hours. Therefore, project lighting impacts would be less than significant.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.1-6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Less than Potentially Significant Less than No Would the project: Significant Impact with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the X
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act X
contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code § 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by X Public Resources Codes § 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code § 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest X
use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in X conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact
The project site is located on campus of Polytechnic High School in a completely urban setting containing a mix of institutional, commercial, and residential uses. The project is proposed on the site of existing sports fields and relocatable classrooms. Therefore, the project site is already developed and would not convert prime, unique, or farmland of statewide importance to urban use. No impacts to farmland would occur as a result of the proposed project.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.2-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact
According to the 2016 State of California Williamson Act Contract Land Map,30 the project site is identified as “Non-Enrolled Land” and does not contain land enrolled in a Williamson Act contract. The project site is not located within an area zoned for agricultural use and is currently zoned as “I- Institutional.” Therefore, no impact would occur.
c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code § 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Codes § 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code § 51104(g))?
No Impact
The project site is located in a developed urban area and within an existing high school campus surrounded by institutional, commercial, and residential uses. The site’s existing zoning “I- Institutional” does not support the definitions provided by Public Resources Code § 42526 for timberland, PRC § 12220(g) for forestland, or Government Code § 51104(g) for timberland zoned for production. Therefore, no impacts related to the conversion of timberlands or forest land would occur. d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non- forest use?
No Impact
As previously stated in c), the project site is located in a developed urban area and within an existing high school campus. Implementation of the project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No impact would occur. e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact
As discussed in a) and c) above, the project site is located on campus of an existing high school in a completely urban setting containing a mix of institutional, commercial, and residential uses. No forest land is located within the project boundary or in the vicinity of the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in changes to the environment which, due to its location or nature, could result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or converting forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, no impact would occur.
30 ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/LA_15_16_WA.pdf/. Accessed on July 19, 2017.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.2-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 AIR QUALITY
4.3 Air Quality
Less than Potentially Significant Less than No Would the project: Significant Impact with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the X applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air X
quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality X
standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial X pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a X substantial number of people? f) Is the boundary of the proposed school site within 500 feet of the edge of the closest traffic lane of a freeway or busy traffic corridor? If X yes, would the project create an air quality health risk due to the placement of the school? g) Create an air quality hazard due to the placement of a school within one-quarter mile of: (i) permitted and non-permitted facilities identified by the jurisdictional air quality control board or air pollution control district; X (ii) freeways and other busy traffic corridors; (iii) large agricultural operations; and/or (iv) a rail yard, which might reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous air emissions?
4.3.1 Pollutants of Concern – Criteria Pollutants
The criteria air pollutants of concern are nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead (Pb), and ozone (O3), and their precursors. Criteria pollutants are air pollutants for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined and an ambient air quality standard has been established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and/or the California Air Resources Board (ARB). Because the proposed project would not generate appreciable SO2 or Pb emissions, it is not necessary for the analysis to include those two pollutants.31 Presented below is a description of the air pollutants of concern and their known health effects.
31 Worst-case sulfur dioxide emissions will be approximately 0.12 pound per day.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.3-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 AIR QUALITY
Nitrogen oxides (NOX): NOX serve as integral participants in the process of photochemical smog production, and are precursors for certain particulate compounds that are formed in the atmosphere.32 The two major forms of NOx are nitric oxide (NO) and NO2. NO is a colorless, odorless gas formed from atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen when combustion takes place under high temperature and/or high pressure. NO2 is a reddish-brown pungent gas formed by the combination of NO and oxygen. NO2 acts as an acute respiratory irritant and eye irritant, and increases susceptibility to respiratory pathogens. A third form of NOX, nitrous oxide (N2O), is a greenhouse gas (GHG).
Carbon monoxide (CO): CO is a colorless, odorless non-reactive pollutant produced by incomplete combustion of carbon-containing fuels (e.g., gasoline, diesel, and biomass). CO levels tend to be highest during the winter months and at low wind speeds, when the meteorological conditions favor the accumulation of the pollutants. This occurs when relatively low inversion levels trap pollutants near the ground and concentrate the CO. CO is essentially inert to plants and materials, but can have significant effects on human health. The primary adverse health effect associated with CO is its binding with hemoglobin in red blood cells, which decreases the ability of these cells to transport oxygen throughout the body. Prolonged exposure can cause headaches, drowsiness, or loss of equilibrium. High concentrations are lethal.
Particulate matter (PM): PM is a mixture of microscopic solids and liquid droplets suspended in air. This pollution is made up of a number of components, including acids and their derivatives (such as nitrates and sulfates), organic chemicals, metals, soil or dust particles, and allergens (such as fragments of pollen or mold spores). Two forms of fine particulate matter are now regulated. Respirable particles, or PM10, include that portion of the particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers (i.e., 10 one-millionths of a meter or 0.0004 inch) or less. Fine particles, or PM2.5, have an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers (i.e., 2.5 one-millionths of a meter or 0.0001 inch) or less. Particulate discharge into the atmosphere results primarily from industrial, agricultural, construction, and transportation activities. However, wind action on the arid landscape also contributes substantially to the local particulate loading. Fossil fuel combustion accounts for a significant portion of PM2.5. In addition, particulate matter forms in the atmosphere through reactions of NOx and other compounds (such as ammonia) to form inorganic nitrates. Both PM10 and PM2.5 may adversely affect the human respiratory system, especially in those people who are naturally sensitive or susceptible to breathing problems.
Reactive organic gases (ROG): ROG are compounds comprised primarily of atoms of hydrogen and carbon that have high photochemical reactivity. The largest source of ROG is the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels in internal combustion engines. Other sources of ROG include the evaporative emissions associated with the use of paints and solvents, the application of asphalt paving, and the use of household consumer products. Adverse effects on human health are not caused directly by ROG, but rather by reactions of ROG to form secondary pollutants. ROG are also transformed into organic aerosols in the atmosphere, contributing to higher levels of fine particulate matter and lower visibility. The term ROG is used by the ARB for air quality analysis, and is defined essentially the same as the federal term volatile organic compound (VOC).
Ozone (O3): O3 is a secondary pollutant produced through a series of photochemical reactions involving ROG and NOX. O3 creation requires ROG and NOx to be available for approximately three
32 A precursor is a directly emitted air contaminant that, when released into the atmosphere, forms, causes to be formed, or contributes to the formation of a secondary air contaminant for which an ambient air standard has been adopted, or whose presence in the atmosphere will contribute to the violation of one or more standards.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.3-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 AIR QUALITY
hours in a stable atmosphere with strong sunlight. Because of the long reaction time, peak O3 concentrations frequently occur downwind of the sites where the precursor pollutants are emitted. Thus, O3 is considered a regional, rather than a local, pollutant. The health effects of O3 include eye and respiratory irritation, reduction of resistance to lung infection, and possible aggravation of pulmonary conditions in persons with lung disease. O3 is also damaging to vegetation and untreated rubber.
4.3.2 Meteorology and Climate
Air quality is affected by both the rate and location of pollutant emissions and by meteorological conditions that influence movement and dispersal of pollutants. Atmospheric conditions such as wind speed, wind direction, and air temperature gradients, along with local topography, provide the link between air pollutant emissions and air quality.
The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the southwest and high mountains around its remaining perimeter. The general region lies in the semi-permanent high pressure zone of the eastern Pacific resulting in a mild climate tempered by cool sea breezes with light average wind speeds. The usually mild climatological pattern is interrupted occasionally by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds.
The vertical dispersion of air pollutants in the SCAB is hampered by the presence of persistent temperature inversions. An upper layer of dry air that warms as it descends characterizes high- pressure systems, such as the semi-permanent high-pressure zone in which the SCAB is located. This upper layer restricts the mobility of cooler marine-influenced air near the ground surface and results in the formation of subsidence inversions. Such inversions restrict the vertical dispersion of air pollutants released into the marine layer and, together with strong sunlight, can produce worst- case conditions for the formation of photochemical smog.
The atmospheric pollution potential of an area is largely dependent on winds, atmospheric stability, solar radiation, and terrain. The combination of low wind speeds and low inversions produces the greatest concentration of air pollutants. On days without inversions, or on days of winds averaging over 15 miles per hour, smog potential is greatly reduced.
Climatological data were obtained from the Western Regional Climate Center’s Cooperative Climatological Data Summaries. The nearest National Weather Service Cooperative Observer Program weather station is located at Long Beach Daugherty Field (2.68 miles north of the proposed project site, at 33.81167° N, 118.14639° W). At the Daugherty Field station,33 average recorded rainfall during the Period of Record (1949 to 2016) measured 12.01 inches, with 71 percent of precipitation occurring between November and March. The annual average maximum temperature was 74.2 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) and the average minimum temperature was 54.8°F, making for only a 19°F temperature fluctuation. In fact, within the year the average monthly maximum temperatures only fluctuate 17°F (84°F in August and 67°F in December) and the average monthly minimum temperatures fluctuate 20°F (65°F in August to 45°F in December).
Winds in the SCAB are generally light, tempered by afternoon sea breezes. Severe weather is uncommon in the Basin, but strong easterly winds known as the Santa Ana winds can reach 25 to 35 miles per hour below the passes and canyons. During the spring and summer months, air
33 http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/climatedata/climsum/. Accessed August 11, 2017.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.3-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 AIR QUALITY
pollution is carried out of the region through mountain passes in wind currents or is lifted by the warm vertical currents produced by the heating of the mountain slopes. From the late summer through the winter months, because of the average lower wind speeds and temperatures in the proposed project area and its vicinity, air contaminants do not readily disperse, thus trapping air pollution in the area.
4.3.3 Regional Air Quality
Table 4.3-1 shows the area designation status of the SCAB for each criteria pollutant for both the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). Based on regional monitoring data, the SCAB is currently designated as a non-attainment area for O3 and PM2.5; a federal maintenance area for CO and NO2; and an attainment area for PM10 34 and SO2. Designation of the SCAB as a maintenance area means that, although the Basin has achieved compliance with the NAAQS for CO and NO2, control strategies that were used to achieve compliance must continue. The Federal ozone classification is “extreme.”35 An extreme non- attainment area has an 8-hour ozone design value of 0.187 ppm,36 and has the attainment deadline of June 15, 2024. On June 26, 2013, the USEPA approved, as a revision to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP), the State's request to re-designate the South Coast Air Basin to attainment for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. The USEPA is also approving the PM10 maintenance plan and the associated PM10 motor vehicle emissions budgets for use in transportation conformity determinations necessary for the South Coast PM10 area. Finally, the USEPA approved the attainment year emissions inventory. The USEPA took these actions because the SIP revision meets the requirements of the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and USEPA guidance for such plans and motor vehicle emissions budgets.37
Table 4.3-1 FEDERAL AND STATE ATTAINMENT STATUS
Pollutants Federal Classification State Classification
Ozone (O3) Non-Attainment (Extreme) Non-Attainment
Particulate Matter (PM10) Maintenance (Serious) Non-Attainment
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Non-Attainment (Moderate) Non-Attainment Carbon Monoxide (CO) Maintenance (Serious) Attainment
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Maintenance Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Attainment Attainment Sources: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “8-Hour Ozone (2008) Designated Area State/Area/County Report.” Green Book. [www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbook/ca8.html]. Data is current as of June 20, 2017. Accessed July 2017. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “PM-10 (1987) Designated Area State/Area/County Report.” Green Book. [https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/pbcs.html#CA]. Data is current as of June 20, 2017. Accessed July 2017. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “PM-2.5 (2012) Designated Area State/Area/County Report.” Green Book. [https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/kbcs.html#CA]. Data is current as of June 20, 2017. Accessed July 2017.
34 According to the SCAQMD, the “Basin has met the PM10 standards at all stations and a request for re-designation to attainment is pending with U.S.EPA.” (SCAQMD Board Meeting, December 7, 2012, Agenda Item 30, p. 6.). 35 http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbook/gncs.html#CALIFORNIA. Accessed August 2017. 36 http:// www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbook/define.html. Accessed August 2017. 37 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-06-26/html/2013-15145.htm.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.3-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 AIR QUALITY
Pollutants Federal Classification State Classification U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Carbon Monoxide (1971) Designated Area State/Area/County Report.” Green Book. [https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/cbcs.html#CA]. Data is current as of June 20, 2017. Accessed July 2017. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Nitrogen Dioxide (1971) Maintenance Area (Redesignated from Nonattainment) State/Area/County Report.” Green Book. [https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/nmcs.html]. Data is current as of June 20, 2017. Accessed July 2017. California Air Resources Board, “Area Designations Maps/State and National.” [www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm]. Accessed July 2017.
4.3.4 Local Air Quality
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has divided the SCAB into source receptor areas (SRAs), based on similar meteorological and topographical features. The proposed project site is located in SRA 4 (South Los Angeles County Coastal), whose air quality is monitored at three stations. The one nearest the site is the South Long Beach Monitoring Station, located at 1305 East Pacific Coast Highway, 0.5 mile northeast of the proposed project site. Only PM10 and PM2.5 are monitored at the South Long Beach Site. The nearest monitoring station having CO, ozone, and NO2 data is located approximately 2.4 miles west-northwest of the proposed project site at 2425 Webster Street. The ambient air quality data in the proposed project vicinity as recorded at the South Long Beach and 2425 Webster Street monitoring stations from 2014 to 2016 and the applicable federal and state standards are shown in Table 4.3-2. Note that, given the complex way in which violation criteria are defined, an exceedance does not necessarily imply a violation of the federal or state ambient air quality standards.
Table 4.3-2 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA
Air Pollutant Standard/Exceedance 2014 2015 2016
Year Coverage 40% ND ND Max. 8-hour Concentration (ppm) 2.57 ND ND Carbon Monoxide (CO)* # Days > Federal 1-hour Std. of 35 ppm 0 ND ND - Webster # Days > Federal 8-hour Std. of 9 ppm 0 ND ND # Days > California 8-hour Std. of 9.0 ppm 0 ND ND Year Coverage 90% 96% 97% Max. 1-hour Concentration (ppm) 0.087 0.087 0.079
Ozone (O3) - Max. 8-hour Concentration (ppm) 0.072 0.066 0.059 Webster # Days > Federal 8-hour Std. of 0.075 ppm 1 0 0 # Days > California 1-hour Std. of 0.09 ppm 0 0 0 # Days > California 8-hour Std. of 0.07 ppm 0 0 0
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.3-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 AIR QUALITY
Air Pollutant Standard/Exceedance 2014 2015 2016
Year Coverage 91% 89% 96% Nitrogen Dioxide Max. 1-hour Concentration (ppm) 0.136 0.102 0.076
(NO2) – Webster # Days > Federal 1-hour Std. of 0.100 ppm 2 1 0 # Days > California 1-hour Std. of 0.18 ppm 0 0 0 Year Coverage 94% 96% 96% Respirable Particulate Max. 24-hour Concentration (µg/m3) 59.0 62.0 56.0 3 Matter (PM10) – #Days > Fed. 24-hour Std. of 150 µg/m 0 0 0 South Long Beach #Days > California 24-hour Std. of 50 µg/m3 2 2 ND Annual Average (µg/m3) 26.6 26.3 ND Year Coverage 42% 90% 97% Fine Particulate Matter Max. Fed. 24-hour Concentration (µg/m3) 52.2 48.3 28.9 3 (PM2.5) – State Annual Average (µg/m ) 14.5 14.0 11.7 South Long Beach #Days > Fed. 24-hour Std. of 35 µg/m3 2 4 0 Federal Annual Average (µg/m3) ND 10.2 9.5 Source: California Air Resources Board, “iADAM Air Quality Data Statistics.” Internet URL: http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/ (Accessed July 2017) ND: There were insufficient (or no) data available to determine the value. * CO monitoring was ended in 2012 at the Webster Station. Data for supplied here for information only is the readings for 2012.
4.3.5 Sensitive Receptors
Some people, such as individuals with respiratory illnesses or impaired lung function because of other illnesses, the elderly over 65 years of age, and children under 14, are particularly sensitive to certain pollutants. Facilities and structures where these sensitive people live or spend considerable amounts of time are known as sensitive receptors. Land uses identified to be sensitive receptors by SCAQMD in the CEQA Handbook include residences, schools, playgrounds, child care centers, athletic facilities, long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. Sensitive receptors may be at risk of being affected by air emissions released from the construction and operation of the proposed project.
The proposed project is located at Polytechnic High School in Long Beach, California. Exposure to potential emissions would vary substantially from day to day depending on the amount of work being conducted, the weather conditions, the location of receptors, and the length of time that receptors would be exposed to air emissions. The construction phase emissions estimated in this analysis are based on conservative estimates and worst-case conditions, with maximum levels of construction activity occurring simultaneously within a short period of time. The nearest sensitive receptors to the proposed project site, with the highest potential to be impacted by the proposed project, are the residential properties adjacent to the Polytechnic High School and the proposed project site itself.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.3-6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 AIR QUALITY
4.3.6 Air Quality Plans
The SCAQMD is required to produce plans to show how air quality will be improved in the region. The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requires that these plans be updated triennially to incorporate the most recent available technical information.38 A multi-level partnership of governmental agencies at the federal, state, regional, and local levels implement the programs contained in these plans. Agencies involved include the USEPA, ARB, local governments, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and SCAQMD. The SCAQMD and the SCAG are responsible for formulating and implementing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the SCAB. The SCAQMD updates its AQMP every three years. The 2016 AQMP was adopted by the SCAQMD Board on March 3, 201739 and submitted to the ARB and the USEPA for concurrent review on March 10, 201740. The 2016 AQMP includes a request for reclassification to serious nonattainment for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS (12 µg/m3) with an attainment date of 2025. It also identifies control measures needed to demonstrate attainment with the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS (75 ppb) by 2031; the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (35 by µg/m3) by 2019; the 1997 Ozone NAAQS (80 ppb) by 2023; and the 1979 1-hour Ozone NAAQS (120 ppb) by 2022 in the South Coast Air Basin.
The 2016 AQMP also demonstrates compliance with all applicable CAA requirements pertaining to nonattainment areas pursuant to the USEPA-approved Implementation Rules, such as the annual average and summer planning emission inventory for criteria and precursor pollutants, attainment demonstrations, reasonably available control measure (RACM) and reasonably available control technology (RACT) analyses, reasonable further progress (RFP), PM precursor requirements, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) demonstrations, and transportation conformity budgets.
4.3.7 Air Quality Thresholds
The significance thresholds for air quality, presented in Table 4.3-3, have been established by the SCAQMD for construction and operations daily emissions. During construction or operation, if any of the identified daily air pollutant thresholds is exceeded by the proposed project, then the air quality impacts may be considered significant. The SCAQMD indicates in Chapter 6 of its CEQA Handbook that it considers a project to be mitigated to a level of insignificance if its primary effects are mitigated below the thresholds provided below.
Table 4.3-3 REGIONAL THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Emissions Pollutant (pounds per day) Construction Operations Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 75 55
Nitrogen Oxide (NOX) 100 55 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 550
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 150 150
38 CCAA of 1988. 39 http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2016-air-quality- management-plan/final-2016-aqmp/resolution.pdf?sfvrsn=6 40 http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2016-air-quality- management-plan/final-2016-aqmp/sipsubmittal.pdf?sfvrsn=6
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.3-7 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 AIR QUALITY
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 55 55
SOX 150 150 Source: Source: Air Quality Significance Thresholds. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Revised March 2015.
The SCAQMD Governing Board adopted a methodology for calculating localized air quality impacts through localized significance thresholds (LSTs), which is consistent with SCAQMD’s Environmental Justice Initiative 4. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable state or national ambient air quality standard (Chico and Koizumi, 2003). The LSTs are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area, and are applicable to NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5.
As noted above, the project site is located in SRA 4. It is assumed that construction will disturb no more than two acres per day and that sensitive receptors are within 25 meters. Table 4.3-4 shows the appropriate LSTs for construction activity. LSTs for construction emissions only apply to onsite sources.
Table 4.3-4 SCAQMD LOCALIZED THRESHOLDS FOR CONSTRUCTION
Localized Significance Pollutant Threshold (lbs/day)
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 82 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 842
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 7
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 5 Source: Localized Significance Thresholds. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Revised October 21, 2009.
4.3.8 Discussion of Impacts
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Less than Significant Impact
Typically, assessments for air quality plan consistency use four criteria for determining project consistency with the current Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The first and second criteria are from the SCAQMD. According to the SCAQMD, there are two key indicators of AQMP consistency: (1) whether the project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP; and (2) whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the year of project build out and phase (SCAQMD 2006). The third criterion is compliance with the control measures in the AQMP. The fourth criterion is compliance with the SCAQMD regional thresholds.
• AQMP Assumptions
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.3-8 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 AIR QUALITY
One way to assess project compliance with the AQMP assumptions is to ensure that the population density and land use are consistent with the growth assumptions used in the air plans for the air basin. According to ARB transportation performance standards, the rate of growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and trips should be held to the rate of population growth (SCAQMD, 2006). Compliance with this performance standard is one way suggested by the ARB of showing compliance with the growth assumptions used in the AQMP. If the total VMT generated by the proposed project at build-out is at or below that predicted by the AQMP, then the proposed project’s mobile emissions are consistent with the AQMP. It is assumed that the existing and future pollutant emissions computed in the AQMP were based on land uses from area general plans.
As discussed in Section 4.10, the proposed project is located within an area designated as Institutional Zoning District on the City’s General Plan Land Use Map. The proposed project involves improvements to existing sports and athletic field facilities located on the existing Polytechnic High School campus. The proposed project includes the replacement of existing track and field with a new synthetic track and the addition of new exterior sports field lighting during the immediate scope in 2018. The proposed project also includes a future scope that includes a relocation of existing portable structures to an area along the eastern boundary of the campus in 2018; relocating existing tennis courts in 2019; replacement of existing softball field with synthetic softball field in 2020; and construction of a new outdoor athletic pool with security lighting and a public address system in 2025. The proposed project is consistent with the policies of the General Plan and located within a consistent land use designation. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the growth assumptions upon which the current AQMP is based and would not conflict with the AQMP. Impacts would be less than significant.
Another measurement tool in evaluating consistency with the AQMP is to determine whether a project would generate population and employment growth and, if so, whether that growth would exceed the growth rates forecasted in the AQMP and how the project would accommodate the expected increase in population or employment. The proposed project will not induce new residential or employment growth. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality management plan and would be less than significant.
• Compliance with Control Measures in the AQMP
The emissions analysis presented in the next section presumes that the project complies with all applicable SCAQMD rules, such watering requirements to suppress PM emissions during construction, and use of low-VOC architectural coatings. These rules, in turn, implement the latest AQMP’s control measures. Therefore, the project will be in compliance with the control measures in the AQMP.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.3-9 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 AIR QUALITY
• Compliance with SCAQMD Regional Thresholds
As discussed in the next section, all construction emissions associated with the Project would be below regional significance thresholds. b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
Less than Significant Impact
Construction activities would create a temporary addition of pollutants to the local and regional air sheds. Construction emissions were estimated for off-road exhaust and fugitive emissions; on-road exhaust emissions and entrained road dust from employee commute and vendor activity; and emissions from the import/export of soil using methodologies presented in CalEEMod Version 2016.3.1 with activity information provided by the District and on-road emission factors from EMFAC2014 (v1.0.7) for applicable calendar years in the Los Angeles County portion of the South Coast Air Basin. (Detailed calculations are presented in Appendix H). As shown in Table 4.3-5, all construction emissions associated with the project would be below the regional significance thresholds for construction.
Table 4.3-5 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs) Construction Phase ROG CO NOX PM10 PM2.5
Project Maximum Daily in 2017 1.8 15.6 19.8 1.0 0.9 Project Maximum Daily in 2018 2.0 15.6 20.5 1.1 1.0 Project Maximum Daily in 2019 0.7 5.8 7.8 0.5 0.4 Project Maximum Daily in 2020 1.3 12.4 13.0 0.7 0.6 Project Maximum Daily in 2025 0.8 7.2 7.2 0.4 0.3 Project Maximum Daily in 2026 0.8 7.2 7.2 0.4 0.3 SCAQMD Daily Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 55 Exceed Thresholds? No No No No No
Source: OB-1 Air Analyses, August 2017.
The project comprises only improvements to existing facilities and does not generate additional operational emissions; therefore, regional emissions of criteria pollutants during the operational phase would be less than significant.
c) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.3-10 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 AIR QUALITY
or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Less than Significant Impact
According to the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency may determine that a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project will comply with the requirements in a previously approved air quality attainment or maintenance plan.41 As described above in 4.3(b), the project would not exceed any of the SCAQMD daily criteria pollutant thresholds. In general, cumulative regional impacts of construction and operation of all projects in the SCAB at any given time are accounted for in the AQMP. The proposed project is compliant with the AQMP so the incremental contribution of the project would not be cumulatively considerable. The only cumulative impacts with the potential for significance would be localized impacts during construction. The analysis in 4.3(b) and 4.3(d) shows that localized impacts from the project would be less than significant and therefore would not contribute to a cumulative impact.
d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Less than Significant Impact
In the discussion above related to Table 4.3-4, only construction emissions from activity on the construction site are considered when comparing to the LST thresholds. As shown in Table 4.3-6, all onsite construction emissions associated with the project would be below the LST thresholds.
Table 4.3-6 ESTIMATED ONSITE CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs) Construction Phase ROG CO NOX PM10 PM2.5
Project Maximum Daily in 2017 1.7 11.7 19.1 0.9 0.8 Project Maximum Daily in 2018 1.8 11.7 19.5 1.0 0.9 Project Maximum Daily in 2019 0.7 4.3 7.4 0.4 0.4 Project Maximum Daily in 2020 1.3 10.2 12.7 0.6 0.6 Project Maximum Daily in 2025 0.7 5.8 6.9 0.3 0.3 Project Maximum Daily in 2026 0.7 5.8 6.9 0.3 0.3 SCAQMD LST Threshold 82 542 7 5 N/A Exceed Thresholds? No No No No
Source: OB-1 Air Analyses, August 2017.
During construction, diesel equipment would be operating. Diesel particulate matter (DPM) is known to the State of California as a toxic air contaminant (TAC). The risks associated with
41 CEQA Guidelines, § 15064(h)(3).
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.3-11 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 AIR QUALITY
exposure to substances with carcinogenic effects are typically evaluated based on a lifetime of chronic exposure, which is defined in the California Air Pollution Control Officers’ Association Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Program Risk Assessment Guidelines as 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 365 days per year, for 70 years. DPM would be emitted during the short term of construction assumed for the proposed project from heavy equipment used in the construction process. Because DPM is considered carcinogenic, long-term exposure to diesel exhaust emissions has the potential to result in adverse health impacts. Due to the short-term nature of project construction, impacts from exposure to diesel exhaust emissions during construction would be less than significant.
e) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than Significant Impact
The CEQA guidelines indicate that a significant impact would occur if the proposed project would create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Diesel exhaust and VOCs, whose odors are objectionable to some, will be emitted during construction of the proposed project; however, emissions will disperse rapidly from the project site and the activity would be temporary. Impacts due to objectionable odors would be less than significant.
f) Is the boundary of the proposed school site within 500 feet of the edge of the closest traffic lane of a freeway or busy traffic corridor? If yes, would the project create an air quality health risk due to the placement of the school?
No Impact
The nearest freeway, Interstate I-710, is approximately 1.4 miles west of the project site and there are no other busy corridors, as defined by the State Education Code42 as urban roadways with greater than 100,000 average daily traffic (ADT). Polytechnic High School, including the facilities being replaced by the project, has been located at this site since its original construction. There would be no change in the distance to freeways or busy traffic corridors. Therefore, the project would create no additional health risk from proximity to mobile sources.
g) Create an air quality hazard due to the placement of a school within one-quarter mile of: (i) permitted and non-permitted facilities identified by the jurisdictional air quality control board or air pollution control district; (ii) freeways and other busy traffic corridors; (iii) large agricultural operations; and/or (iv) a rail yard, which might reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous air emissions?
No Impact
i. A search of the SCAQMD’s Facility Information Detail (FIND) online database43 found no air toxics emission sources within 0.25 mile of the school. Therefore, the proposed project would not be exposed to significant emissions of hazardous air pollutants from a facility regulated by the SCAQMD.
42 Title 1, Division 1, Part 10.5, Chapter 1, Section 17213(d) 43 http://www3.aqmd.gov/webappl/fim/prog/search.aspx. Accessed August 2, 2017.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.3-12 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 AIR QUALITY
ii. The nearest freeway, Interstate I-710, is approximately 1.4 miles west of the project site and there are no urban roadways with greater than 100,000 average daily traffic (ADT). Polytechnic High School, including the facilities being replaced by the project, has been located at this site since its original construction. There would be no change in the distance to freeways or busy traffic corridors. Therefore, the project would create no additional health risk from proximity to hazardous emissions from mobile sources.
iii. The project site is in an urban area, and is not near any agricultural operations. Therefore, the proposed project would not be exposed to hazardous air emissions from a large agricultural operation.
iv. The project site is not near a rail yard. Therefore, the proposed project would not be exposed to hazardous air emissions from operations at a large rail yard.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.3-13 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4 Biological Resources
Less than Potentially Significant Less than No Would the project: Significant Impact with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special- status species in local or regional X
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, X or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by § 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, X marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or X with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological X resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, X or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
4.4.1 Methodology
Relevant literature, maps, databases, agency web sites, Geographic Information System (GIS) data, and aerial imagery were obtained from public domain sources to: (1) assess habitats, special-status plant and wildlife species, jurisdictional waters, critical habitats, and wildlife corridors that may potentially occur in and near the project site, and (2) identify local or regional plans, policies, and
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.4-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
regulations that may apply to the project. Plant and wildlife species protected by federal agencies, state agencies, and nonprofit resource organizations, such as the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), are collectively referred to as “special-status species” in this report.44 Some of these plant and wildlife species are afforded special legal or management protection because they are limited in population size, and typically have a limited geographic range and/or habitat. The following data sources were accessed.
• United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-Minute Topographic Map Long Beach Quadrangle45 and current aerial imagery.46 • Web Soil Survey provided by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).47 • California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) provided by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).48 • Information, Planning and Conservation (IPaC) provided by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).49 • Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California, 8th Edition, provided by the CNPS.50 • National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) provided by the USFWS.51 • National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) provided by the USGS.52 • Critical Habitat Portal provided by the USFWS.53
Following literature and data review, UltraSystems biologist, Ms. Sloane Seferyn, conducted a reconnaissance-level field survey on July 19, 2017 in and near the project site to: (1) assess the potential for sensitive habitats and presence of special-status plant and wildlife species; (2) identify plant communities, jurisdictional waters, and potential wildlife corridors; and (3) identify potential impacts to these biological resources.
Field Survey Methods
This section describes the field survey methods used by UltraSystems’ biologist within the Biological Survey Area (BSA) during the 2017 field survey. A biologist visited the BSA to conduct the following biological surveys:
• Habitat assessment and plant community mapping. • General plant survey. • General wildlife survey. • Wildlife movement assessment.
44 Avian species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) are not considered “special-status species.” 45 http://atlas.ca.gov/imagerySearch.html. Accessed on July 18, 2017. 46 Google Earth©. Accessed on July 18, 2017. 47 USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey: http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed on July 18, 2017. 48 CDFW CNDDB: https://map.dfg.ca.gov/rarefind/view/RareFind.aspx. Accessed on July 18, 2017. 49 USFWS IPaC: http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed on July 18, 2017. 50 CNPS Topo Quad Search: http://cnps.site.aplus.net/cgi-bin/inv/inventory.cgi/BrowseAZ?name=quad. Accessed on July 18, 2017. 51 USFWS NWI: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/mapper.html. Accessed on July 18, 2017. 52 USGS NHD: http://nhd.usgs.gov/. Accessed on July 18, 2017. 53 USFWS Critical Habitat Portal: http://ecos.fws.gov/crithab/. Accessed on July 18, 2017.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.4-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The purpose of the field work was to evaluate the initial results of the literature review and to collect additional data on existing site conditions. The general biological survey covered accessible areas of the BSA, including areas that would be impacted by the project. The survey was conducted during the daytime on foot by walking slowly across each habitat type. The biologist used binoculars from strategic vantage points to survey areas of private property with no access rights.
The biologist used pertinent regional flora and fauna field guides, and topographic and aerial maps during the field surveys, to identify habitats and physical features, and to identify and record special-status species. In addition, the biologist used Global Positioning System (GPS) units and other GIS and survey-related techniques, hardware and software to collect locational data to record relevant attributes of features or species encountered. Digital color photographs were taken during the field surveys to record site conditions at the time of the field surveys. The methods for each type of biological surveys are described in the following sections.
Habitat Assessment and Plant Community Mapping
The biologist characterized the existing habitat and searched for the presence of sensitive plant communities. The purpose of the habitat assessment was to ascertain existing site conditions and identify habitat areas that could be suitable for special-status plant and wildlife species.
General Plant Surveys
Prior to the start of field surveys, the biologist researched information on the blooming periods and habitat preferences for special-status plants determined to have some potential to occur within the BSA based on distribution and elevation range. The biologist then surveyed the BSA for existing habitat, vegetation and presence of special-status plant species, and focused on those habitat areas that appeared to provide suitable habitat for special-status plant species. Plant species were identified in the field and also in the office, when necessary, using plant field guides and taxonomical guides, such as The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, second edition (Baldwin et al., 2012). Identifiable plant species encountered during the field surveys were recorded in field notes.
After the field surveys and mapping of the plant communities within the BSA was complete, an additional evaluation was conducted in the office for each special-status plant species in the plant inventory. The evaluation considered whether the BSA contained suitable habitats and soils to support those special-status plant species listed in the plant inventory. A species was determined to have “no potential to occur” within the BSA if the existing habitats and/or soils in the BSA were clearly absent or unsuitable to support the species. For example, plant species that are only found within desert sand dunes or coastal bluff scrub would be determined to have no potential to occur because those habitats are clearly absent from the BSA. Those special-status plant species determined to have no potential to occur within the BSA, and therefore, not affected by the project, were eliminated from further evaluation and are not discussed further in this report.
4.4.2 Plants
This section describes the plants detected during the field surveys and the special-status plants that could have a potential to occur within the BSA, as identified by the literature review and field surveys.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.4-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Plant Species Recorded During the Field Surveys
Approximately four plant species from three plant families were observed within the BSA. No listed or sensitive plants were observed within the BSA during the general biological survey. In addition, the literature review and field survey concluded that all the plant species in the plant inventory have no more than a low potential to exist within the BSA due to a lack of suitable habitats, soils, elevation range, distribution, and/or other factors to support them. A list of plant species recorded within the BSA during the field survey is provided in Appendix G, Plant and Wildlife Species Recorded during the Field Survey.
Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Plants
No listed plant species were observed within the BSA during the field surveys. In addition, the literature review and field survey concluded that all the listed species in the plant inventory do not have more than a low potential to exist within the BSA due to a lack of suitable biological and physical features that are adequately needed to support them. These species will not be mentioned again in this document and include:
• Lyon’s pentachaeta (Pentachaeta lyonii). • Brand’s star phacelia (Phacelia stellaris). • Ventura marsh milk-vetch (Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus). • salt marsh bird’s-beak (Chloropyron maritimum ssp. maritimum). • California orcutt grass (Orcuttia californica).
Sensitive Plant Species
No sensitive plant species were observed within the BSA during the field surveys. In addition, the literature review and field survey concluded that a majority of the sensitive species in the plant inventory do not have more than a low potential to exist within the BSA due to a lack of suitable biological and physical features that are needed to support them adequately. These species will not be mentioned again in this document and include:
• southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis). • Coulter’s goldfields (Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri). • San Bernardino aster (Symphyotrichum defoliatum). • mud nama (Nama stenocarpa). • Coulter’s saltbush (Atriplex coulteri). • South coast saltscale (Atriplex pacifica). • Parish’s brittlescale (Atriplex parishii). • Davidson’s saltscale (Atriplex serenana var. davidsonii). • Aphanisma (Aphanisma blitoides). • Catalina crossosoma (Crossosoma californicum). • Island green dudleya (Dudleya virens ssp. insularis). • Decumbent goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii var. decumbens). • estuary seablite (Suaeda esteroa). • Dorothy’s El Segundo Dune weevil (Trigonoscuta dorothea dorothea). • salt spring checkerbloom (Sidalcea neomexicana). • prostrate vernal pool navarretia (Navarretia prostrata). and • coast woolly-heads (Nemacaulis denudata var. denudate).
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.4-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4.3 Wildlife
This section describes the wildlife observed and/or detected during the field surveys and the special-status wildlife that have a potential to occur within the BSA as determined by the literature review and field survey.
Wildlife Species Recorded During the Field Surveys
The BSA supports a limited assortment of wildlife and provides foraging, nesting, breeding, and cover habitats to amphibians, reptiles, birds (year-round residents, seasonal residents, migrants), and mammals. The number of individual birds and the diversity of bird species observed/detected within the BSA during the field survey were low. During the field survey eleven bird species were recorded within the BSA. A list of wildlife species recorded within the BSA during the field survey is provided in Appendix G, Plant and Wildlife Species Recorded during the Field Survey.
Wildlife survey limitations include the following:
• The biological field surveys were conducted during the daytime to maximize the detection of most wildlife. Birds represent the largest component of the fauna observed because most birds are active in the daytime. In contrast, daytime surveys usually result in few observations of mammals, many of which may only be active at night. Many mammal species may also have been unnoticed due to their subterranean habitats. • Many species of amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and even some birds are secretive in their habits and are difficult for biologists to observe in a walking survey. • Many wildlife species are wide-ranging and/or they only occur on a seasonal basis; therefore, they may not have been present within the BSA at the time of the surveys. • Many species are nocturnal, move about a territory, may have become dormant for the season, or are less active during inclement weather. Many species of amphibians are dormant for most of the year and become active only during inclement weather (during and after storm events). • Additional wildlife species that likely use the BSA were not observed or indirectly detected during the field surveys due to their scarcity or the need for special survey methods.
Vegetation communities form the basis of the wildlife habitats and provide the primary plant productivity upon which wildlife depends, along with nesting and denning sites, escape and movement cover, and protection from adverse weather. Some species are habitat specific for all their life history requirements, while many wildlife species move freely between plant communities to obtain all their life history needs. In general, more complex natural communities with more vegetation layers and more plant species provide higher value wildlife habitat than less complex vegetation communities. More complex communities have more niches for wildlife and usually support more animal species than less complex communities. Although simple communities may support few wildlife species, they may provide habitat for great numbers of those few species. The BSA lacks complex vegetation communities.
Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Wildlife
No listed wildlife species were observed within the BSA during the field surveys. In addition, the literature review and field surveys concluded that all the listed species in the wildlife inventory do not have more than a low potential to exist within the BSA due to a lack of suitable biological and
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.4-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES physical features that are adequately needed to support them. These species will not be mentioned again in this report and include:
• green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas). • Palos Verdes blue butterfly (Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis). • Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni). • light-footed Ridgeway’s rail (Rallus obsoletus levipes). • California least tern (Sternula antillarum browni). • western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis). • western snowy plover - Pacific coastal population (Charadrius nivosus nivosus). • southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). • least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus). • bank swallow (Riparia riparia). • coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica). • California brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus). • Belding’s savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi). • Mohave tui chub (Siphateles bicolor mohavensis). • tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor). and • Pacific pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris pacificus).
Sensitive Wildlife
No sensitive wildlife species were observed within the BSA during the field surveys. In addition, the literature review and field surveys concluded that a majority of the sensitive species in the wildlife inventory do not have more than a low potential to exist within the BSA due to a lack of suitable biological and physical features that are needed to support them adequately. These species will not be mentioned again in this report and include:
• southern California legless lizard (Anniella stebbinsi). • coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvilii). • monarch (Danaus plexippus). • ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis). • burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). • western pong turtle (Emys marmorata). • south coast marsh vole (Microtus californicus stephensi). • southern California saltmarsh shrew (Sorex ornatus salicornicus). • western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus). • big free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops macrotis). • western yellow bat (Lasiurus xanthinus). • silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans). • California brackishwater snail (Tryonia imitator). • wandering skipper (Panoquina errans). • pocketed free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops femorosaccus). • San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia). • Crotch bumble bee (Bombus crotchii). • sandy beach tiger beetle (Cicindela hirticollis gravida). • western tidal-flat tiger beetle (Cicindela gabbii). • western beach tiger beetle (Cicindela latesignata latesignata). and
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.4-6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
• senile tiger beetle (Cicindela senilis frosti).
Management Plans
The BSA does not lie within any management plan areas or land designation areas. The nearest management plan or land designation area (CA Coastal Zone) is located one mile away, south of the project area.
USFWS Critical Habitats
The BSA is not located within designated or proposed critical habitat for listed plant or wildlife species. The nearest critical habitat (coastal California gnatcatcher) is located seven miles from the project site.54
Wildlife Corridors
The BSA does not serve as a wildlife corridor. The nearest wildlife corridor (natural landscape block) is located 15.7 miles from the project site.55
Federal, State and Local Approvals, Permits, and Fees
This section describes the necessary federal, state, and local biological permits and/or approvals that would be required for project construction to occur. Compliance with the terms and conditions of the permits and regulatory programs would ensure that potential impacts on sensitive biological resources are less than significant.
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
A construction SWPPP will be developed as required by, and must be prepared in compliance with all requirements of, the CWA § 402 Construction General NPDES Permit. The SWPPP must identify potential pollutant sources associated with construction of the project, as well as pollutants likely to be discharged in stormwater and non-stormwater discharges during the construction phase; include a water quality monitoring, sampling and reporting plan; identify, and require implementation and maintenance of appropriate BMPs addressing site conditions, construction activities, and potential pollutants as they evolve during construction phases to reduce or eliminate pollutants associated with the construction site; and mandate soil stabilization BMPs and performance standards during and upon termination of construction activities. These measures will minimize erosion, sedimentation, and the discharge of other construction related pollutants during and following the project’s construction phase consistent with the regulatory requirements and performance standards set forth in the Construction General NPDES Permit.
Post-Construction Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
The post-construction WQMP must identify potential pollutant sources associated with use and occupation of the project, as well as pollutants likely to be discharged in stormwater and non- stormwater discharges during the post-development phase. The WQMP must include water quality monitoring and reporting measures and identify, and require implementation and long-term
54 http://ecos.fws.gov/crithab/. Accessed July 24, 2017. 55 ftp://ftp.dfg.ca.gov/BDB/GIS/BIOS/Habitat_Connectivity/. Accessed July 24, 2017.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.4-7 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
maintenance of appropriate BMPs addressing site conditions, on-site activities, and associated potential pollutants to reduce or eliminate pollutants associated with the construction site. These measures will minimize erosion, sedimentation, and the discharge of other project related pollutants following construction and during use and occupancy of the project in compliance with the regulatory requirements and performance standards set forth in the MS4 Permit.
4.4.4 Discussion of Impacts
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than Significant Impact
The project site is located within an urban area, which provides low habitat value for special-status plant and wildlife species. The project site contains structures, sidewalks, and a paved surface parking lot that would not support sensitive habitats or special-status species. No special-status plants or wildlife56 were observed within the project site. The project site lacks suitable soils, biological resources, and physical features that could support special-status plant or wildlife species. For this reason, no direct or indirect impacts on special-status plant or wildlife species are anticipated as a result of project activities.
The project site supports ornamental vegetation and structures that could potentially provide cover and nesting habitat for bird species that have adapted to urban areas, such as mourning doves (Zenaida macroura). Mourning doves are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Fish and Game Code, which render it unlawful to take native breeding birds, and their nests, eggs, and young. Temporary direct impacts on breeding birds could occur from increased noise, vibration, and dust during construction. Construction on the project site would begin with demolition activities. During this initial construction phase, existing ornamental vegetation would be removed prior to the start of the breeding bird nesting season, which is typically from February 15 through September 15. As the existing ornamental vegetation located on site would be removed prior to breeding bird nesting season, the potential for the site to provide cover and nesting habitat for bird species is anticipated to be low. For these reasons, temporary project impacts on migratory birds and nests during the construction phase are anticipated to be less than significant.
b) Would the project have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact
The dominant land use in the vicinity of the project is urban development, which includes structures, paving, and other impervious surfaces and/or areas where landscaping has been installed and maintained. No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities were observed in or adjacent to the project site. For this reason, no direct or indirect impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities are anticipated as a result of project activities.
56 Special-status species include candidate and sensitive species.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.4-8 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by § 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact
According to the literature review and reconnaissance-level field survey, no wetlands occur in or adjacent to the project site. For this reason, no direct or indirect impacts to federally protected wetlands as defined by § 404 of the Clean Water Act through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means are anticipated as a result of project activities.
d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?
No Impact
According to the literature review and reconnaissance-level field survey, the project site does not function as a wildlife movement corridor. The project site does not contain wildlife travel routes, such as a riparian strip, ridgeline, drainage, or wildlife crossings, such as a tunnel, culvert, or underpass. In addition, the project contains a chain-linked fence around the boundary. This fence inhibits wildlife travel through the site. Common wildlife species such as coyotes, northern raccoons, striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis), and Virginia opossums could be expected to travel within areas surrounding the site.
The project site and adjacent areas do not support resident or migratory fish species or wildlife nursery sites. No established resident or migratory wildlife corridors occur within the project site. For these reasons, the project would not interfere substantially with or impede (1) the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, (2) established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or (3) the use of wildlife nursery sites.
e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact
The project is located within a developed urban area and no native trees or shrubs protected by local policies or ordinances were observed within the project site during the reconnaissance-level field survey. For these reasons, the project would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.4-9 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact
The project site is not located in an area covered by a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) or other approved HCP. For this reason, the project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or state HCP.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.4-10 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.5 Cultural Resources
Less-than- Potentially Significant Less-than- No Would the project: Significant Impact with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource X as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological X resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or X unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal X cemeteries?
4.5.1 Methodology
A cultural resources analysis was conducted for the Long Beach Polytechnic High School project site (Appendix I) that included a California Historic Resources Inventory System (CHRIS) records and literature search at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) located at California State University, Fullerton. Additionally, a request was made to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to conduct a search of their Sacred Lands File (SLF) for potential traditional cultural properties, as well as to provide a list of local Native American tribes and tribal representatives to contact. The SCCIC records search was conducted on July 10, 2017. The NAHC request was made on June 30, 2017 and a reply was received on July 6, 2017; letters were sent to the listed tribes on July 10, 2017 with follow-up telephone calls conducted August 12, 2017.
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5?
No Impact
No historical or archaeological resources were identified within the project site, which has been previously developed (refer to Figure 4.5-1). For this reason, no impacts to these resources are anticipated.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.5-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Figure 4.5-1 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.5-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 CULTURAL RESOURCES
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact
The proposed project site is within the Long Beach Polytechnic High School campus and is surrounded by a completely developed and urban setting containing a mix of roadways and residential and institutional uses. Development of the area was essentially complete by the mid- 1930s. As determined by the cultural resource investigation described in “Methodology” above, no historical or archaeological resources were identified within the proposed project site during previous investigations, nor are there known tribal cultural resources present;57 however, unknown or unrecorded resources may potentially be revealed during precise grading activities. This may occur if ground disturbance activities penetrate deeper than previous work performed.
The City of Long Beach’s General Plan, Historic Preservation Element requires the protection of cultural, structural, and archaeological resources, but does not require archaeological monitoring of ground disturbance.58 California Public Resources Code59 (PRC) protects archeological, paleontological, and historical sites with a wide variety of state policies and regulations in conjunction with the CEQA. Furthermore, all construction activities must comply with PRC §§ 21083.2-21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines §§ 15064.5 and 15126.4(b) which address the protection of archeological and historical resources. California Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) requires local government agencies to consult with Native American tribes in the land development process in order to preserve traditional tribal cultural places.
With adherence to applicable California PRC sections, and SB 18 consultation requirements, no impacts to historical resources and less than significant impacts to archaeological resources are anticipated. c) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less than Significant Impact
As previously mentioned in 4.5(a) of this initial study, the proposed project will be located on a site that has been graded and has been in use since the mid-1930s. Although the project proposes precise grading activities, it is not anticipated to directly or indirectly destroy any paleontological resources or site or unique geologic feature since previous grading activities have yielded negative results.
There are no regulations regarding paleontological resources monitoring or preservation in the City of Long Beach’s municipal codes or General Plan.60 In the unlikely event that a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic feature is discovered during precise grading activities, then the California Public Resources Code requirements would become effective immediately. Therefore, with adherence to all applicable requirements, less than significant impacts are anticipated.
57 See Native American Heritage Commission and Native American Communities Consultation in Support of LBUSD, Athletic Field Improvement Project at Long Beach Polytechnic High School. 58 http://www.lbds.info/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3455, Accessed in July 2017. 59 California Public Resources Code §§ 5020–5029.5, 5079–5079.65, and 5097.9.–5097.98. 60 City of Long Beach, General Plan, Updated 2030,
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.5-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 CULTURAL RESOURCES
d) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Less than Significant Impact
As previously mentioned in 4.5(a) of this initial study, the proposed project will be located on a site that has been graded and has been in use since the mid-1930s. During previous ground disturbance activities, no human remains were identified or recorded onsite. In the unlikely event that human remains are discovered, during precise grading or construction activities, the project would be subject to California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5, CEQA § 15064.5, and California Public Resources Code § 5097.98.
California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 identifies procedures for the unlikely discovery of human remains. CEQA § 15064.5 indicates the process for determining the significance of impacts to archeological and historical resources. California Public Resources Code § 5097.98 stipulates the notification process during the discovery of Native American human remains, descendants, disposition of human remains, and associated artifacts. Therefore, adherence to all applicable codes and regulations would result in a less than significant impact.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.5-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
4.6 Geology and Soils
Less than Potentially Significant Less than Would the project: Significant Impact with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) (1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault, or (2) placement of a school within an area designated as geologically hazardous in the safety X element of the local general plan, or (3) construction, reconstruction, or relocation of any school building on the trace of a geological fault along which surface rupture can reasonably be expected to occur within the life of the school building?? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii) The construction, reconstruction, or relocation of any school building on a X site subject to moderate-to-high liquefaction? iv) The construction, reconstruction, or relocation of any school building on a X site subject to landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss X of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially X result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1 B of the Uniform Building Code X (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.6-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Less than Potentially Significant Less than Would the project: Significant Impact with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems X where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
a) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
Less than Significant Impact
In California, an “Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone” (formerly Special Study Zone) is a seismic hazard area that varies in width, but averages approximately 0.25 mile around active faults. A fault is a fracture in the crust of the earth, where the rock mass on one side moves relative to the rock mass on the other side. Most faults are the result of repeated displacements over a long period of time. A fault trace is the line on the land surface defining the fault that can be delineated on a map. Surface rupture occurs when movement on a fault occurs at the surface. These faults may pose a risk of rupture to existing or future structures.
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed in 1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to structures for human occupancy. This law was a direct result of the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake, which was associated with extensive surface fault ruptures that damaged numerous homes, commercial buildings, and other structures. Surface rupture is the most easily avoided seismic hazard. For the purposes of the Act, an active fault is one that has ruptured in the last 11 thousand years (Holocene time), and a potentially active fault is one that has ruptured in the last 1.6 million years (Pleistocene time). The law requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones (Earthquake Fault Zones), and prepare maps showing surface traces of active faults.
The proposed project site is not within a designated State of California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, or within an area designated as a seismic hazard zone (ASE, 2017). No evidence of active or potentially active faulting was observed during the geotechnical investigation undertaken for the proposed project and the risk of surface rupture at the project site is considered very low (ASE, 2017). No known active or potentially active faults trend toward or through the project site (refer to Figure 4.6-1 and Figure 4.6-2). For these reasons, impacts from rupture of a known earthquake fault during the life of the project would be less than significant.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.6-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Figure 4.6-1 REGIONALLY ACTIVE FAULTS
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.6-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Figure 4.6-2 ALQUIST PRIOLO EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONES
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.6-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than Significant Impact
A total of 39 active or potentially active faults have been identified within 62 miles of the project site. For this reason, the project site is likely to be subject to strong seismic ground shaking during the life of the project, which could potentially cause collapse of structures, buckling of walls, and damage to foundations. Based on the analysis performed for this project site, the Newport- Inglewood fault, approximately 1.2 miles southwest of the project site, would probably generate the most severe ground shaking. The maximum probable earthquake (MPE) that is likely to occur during a 100-year time interval is 7.1 Mw61, which would result in acceleration on the order of 0.513g62 at the project site. Other nearby active faults include the Palos Verdes Fault and the Puente Hills Blind Thrust Fault approximately 5.8 and 12.1 miles from the project site, respectively (ASE, 2017).
Proposed structures would be constructed in accordance with applicable California Building Code (CBC) (Title 24, Part 2, California Code of Regulations) adopted by the legislature and used throughout the state, and requirements from State of California’s Department of General Services, Division of the State Architect (DSA). The CBC provides minimum standards to protect property and the public welfare by regulating the design and construction of excavations, foundations, building frames, retaining walls, and other building elements to mitigate the effects of seismic shaking and adverse soil conditions. The CBC contains provisions for earthquake safety based on factors including occupancy type, the types of soil and rock onsite, and the strength of ground motion with specified probability of occurring at the site. It requires the preparation of project-specific geotechnical reports prepared by a Certified Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer prior to construction of proposed structures. A project-specific geotechnical investigation report has been prepared for the proposed project (ASE, 2017; see Appendix B). Site specific recommendations provided in the geotechnical report would be incorporated into project plans that are reviewed by building officials prior to issuance of permits. If applicable, structures would also be inspected in the field prior to permit sign off to ensure that these requirements are implemented. For these reasons, impacts from strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant.
iii) The construction, reconstruction, or relocation of any school building on a site subject to moderate-to-high liquefaction?
Less than Significant Impact
Liquefaction is the loss of soil strength from a rapid increase in pore-water pressure during severe ground shaking and occurs primarily in loose (low density), cohesion-less, and fine- to medium- grained soils in areas where groundwater is approximately 20 feet below the ground surface (bgs) or less. The project site is not within a known liquefaction hazard zone according to the California Seismic Hazard Zone Report (ASE, 2017) (refer to Figure 4.6-3).
61 The moment magnitude scale (Mw) reports the size of earthquakes in terms of energy released. The magnitude is based on the seismic moment of the earthquake, which is equal to the rigidity of the earth multiplied by the average amount of slip on the fault and the size of the area that slipped. The Mw scale was developed in the 1970s to succeed the 1930s-era Richter scale. Although the formulae are different, the Mw scale retains the familiar magnitude values used in the Richter scale. The Mw scale is now used by the United States Geological Survey to estimate magnitudes for modern large earthquakes. 62 g = gravitational acceleration of 9.8 meters per second per second.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.6-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Figure 4.6-3 LIQUEFACTION AND LANDSLIDE HAZARD ZONES
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.6-6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Based on the historic high groundwater in the vicinity of the project site is on the order of 25 to 30 bgs, the existing project site fine-grained and granular soils exhibit firm to very stiff, and medium dense to dense conditions, respectively, and the increasing density and consistency with depth of the native Older Alluvium Deposits, potential for liquefaction within the proposed project site would be considered very low. For these reasons, impacts associated with liquefaction would be less than significant.
iv) The construction, reconstruction, or relocation of any school building on a site subject to landslides?
No Impact
Landslides occur when the stability of the slope changes from a stable to an unstable condition. A change in the stability of a slope can be caused by a number of factors, acting together or alone. Natural causes of landslides include groundwater (pore water) pressure acting to destabilize the slope, loss of vegetative structure, erosion of the toe of a slope by rivers or ocean waves, weakening of a slope through saturation by snow melt or heavy rains, earthquakes adding loads to barely stable slope, earthquake-caused liquefaction destabilizing slopes, and volcanic eruptions.
The project site is not within a landslide hazard zone according to the California Seismic Hazard Zone Report (ASE, 2017), and the topography within and surrounding the property is relatively flat (refer to Figure 4.6-3). There is no indication that recent landslides or unstable slope conditions exist on or adjacent to the project site that would otherwise result in an obvious landslide hazard to the proposed development or adjacent properties. For these reasons, no impacts to people or structures due to landslides are anticipated.
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less than Significant Impact
Section 402 of the federal Clean Water Act requires construction projects that may potentially result in soil erosion to implement best management practices (BMPs) to eliminate or reduce sediment and other pollutants in stormwater runoff. If one or more acres of soil would be disturbed, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit would be obtained. NPDES permits establish enforceable limits on discharges, require effluent monitoring, designate reporting requirements, and require construction and post-construction BMPs to eliminate or reduce point and non-point source discharges of pollutants, including soil.63
A General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (NPDES permit) would be required for this construction project. This NPDES Permit would require the Legally Responsible Person (LRP), such as the project owner, to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to construction to identify construction BMPs to eliminate or reduce soils and pollutants in storm water and non-storm water discharged to storm water sewer systems and other drainages. Prior to NPDES permit issuance, the LRP would upload Permit Registration Documents (PRDs) to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) on- line Stormwater Multi-Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS). PRDs include a Notice of Intent (NOI), site map, risk assessment, SWPPP, post-construction water balance, annual fee, and
63 California State Water Resources Control Board, http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/constpermits.shtml. Accessed June 26, 2017.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.6-7 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
signed certification statement by the LRP attesting to the validity of the information. These preventive measures during construction are intended to eliminate or reduce soil and topsoil erosion.
The project site has a low potential for soil erosion because it is relatively flat. Additionally, the proposed project must be designed to minimize, to the maximum extent practicable, the introduction of pollutants that may result in significant impacts, generated from site runoff to the storm water conveyance system as approved by the building official. For these reasons, the potential for substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be less than significant.
c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in, on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less than Significant Impact
The potential impact of landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse on proposed buildings and other structures is discussed below.
Landslides
Landslides occur when the stability of the slope changes from a stable to an unstable condition. A change in the stability of a slope can be caused by a number of factors, acting together or alone. Natural causes of landslides include groundwater (pore water) pressure acting to destabilize the slope, loss of vegetative structure, erosion of the toe of a slope by rivers or ocean waves, weakening of a slope through saturation by snow melt, or heavy rains, earthquakes adding loads to barely stable slope, earthquake-caused liquefaction destabilizing slopes, and volcanic eruptions. The project site is flat, and not within a landslide hazard zone. For these reasons, no impacts to people or structures due to landslides are anticipated.
Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading, a phenomenon associated with seismically-induced soil liquefaction, is a display of lateral displacement of soils due to inertial motion and lack of lateral support during or post liquefaction. It is typically exemplified by the formation of vertical cracks on the surface of liquefied soils, and usually takes place on gently sloping ground or level ground with nearby free surface such as drainage or stream channel. Since there is no presence of free surface on or nearby the project site, and since seismically-induced liquefaction is anticipated to have minimal impact if it were to take place on or near the project site, the potential for the occurrence of liquefaction- induced lateral spreading is deemed unlikely on the project site (ASE, 2017). For this reason, the potential for lateral spreading would be less than significant.
Subsidence
Seismically induced differential settlement may occur in loose to moderately dense, unsaturated granular soils and result in subsidence. Subsidence may also occur in areas of excessive overdraft during oil and groundwater production. No subsidence from oil or groundwater overdraft occurs in this area. According to the 2017 geotechnical investigation at the project site, shallow earth materials on site consist of mostly by firm to very stiff, fine-grained clayey/silty soils, and medium dense to dense clayey sands, and are considered non-liquefiable. Settlement of deeper on-site
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.6-8 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
granular soils from seismically-induced densification (i.e., "dry" seismic settlement) is estimated to be less than 1/2 inch, and would affect a relatively large area. Consequently, differential settlement over short distances is unlikely. For these reasons, potential for damage to buildings within the proposed property from subsidence would be less than significant.
Liquefaction
Liquefaction is the loss of soil strength from a rapid increase in pore-water pressure during severe ground shaking and occurs primarily in loose (low density), cohesion-less, and fine- to medium- grained soils in areas where groundwater is approximately 20 feet bgs or less. Shallow earth materials on site consist of mostly by firm to very stiff, fine-grained clayey/silty soils, and medium dense to dense clayey sands, groundwater is deeper than 20 feet bgs, and accelerations expected from seismicity are relatively small (0.513), potential for liquefaction within the proposed project site would be less than significant.
Collapse
Collapsible soils consist of loose, dry, low-density materials that collapse and compact with the addition of water or excessive loading. These soils are distributed throughout the southwestern United States, specifically in areas of young alluvial fans, debris flow sediments, and loess (wind- blown sediment) deposits. Soil collapse occurs when the land surface is saturated at depths greater than those reached by typical rain events. This saturation eliminates the clay bonds holding the soil grains together. Similar to expansive soils, collapsible soils result in structural damage such as cracking of the foundation, floors, and walls in response to settlement. Because subsurface soils consist of mostly by firm to very stiff, fine-grained clayey/silty soils, and medium dense to dense clayey sands, and groundwater is deeper than 20 feet bgs, potential for soil collapse within the proposed project site would be less than significant.
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1 B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
Less than Significant Impact
Expansive soils shrink and swell with changes in soil moisture. Soil moisture may change from landscape irrigation, rainfall, and utility leakage. Repeated changes in soil volume due to water content fluctuations may compromise structure foundations. Expansive soils are commonly very fine-grained with high to very high percentages of clay. Laboratory test results on a near surface soil sample indicate a "Low" soil expansion potential (ASE 2017). Lightly loaded structural elements could undergo movements upon prolonged moisture inundation that could potentially result in distress to shallow foundations and/or slabs due to the "Low" expansion potential of site clayey soils. Design provisions such as adequate reinforcements, deeper foundations or other measures may help alleviate the effects of soils expansion but may not completely eliminate the problem.
The project would be required to comply with the applicable soil and foundation codes of the CBC and UBC that specify special foundation design for construction on soils that exceed certain expansion thresholds. A project-specific geotechnical investigation report has been prepared for the proposed project. Site specific recommendations provided in the geotechnical report would be incorporated into project plans that are reviewed by building officials prior to issuance of permits. If applicable, structures would also be inspected in the field prior to permit sign off to ensure that
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.6-9 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
these requirements are implemented. For these reasons, impacts due to location on expansive soils would be less than significant.
e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
No Impact
The proposed project would not include septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. For this reason, no impact from septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems within the proposed project site would occur.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.6-10 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Less than Potentially Significant Less than No Would the project: Significant Impact with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may X have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose X of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
4.7.1 GHG Constituents
Constituent gases that trap heat in the Earth’s atmosphere are called greenhouse gases (GHGs), analogous to the way a greenhouse retains heat. GHGs play a critical role in the Earth’s radiation budget by trapping infrared radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface, which would otherwise escape into space. Prominent GHGs contributing to this process include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), ozone (O3), water vapor, nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Without the natural heat-trapping effect of GHG, the earth’s surface would be about 34°F cooler. This natural phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate. However, anthropogenic emissions of these GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations are responsible for the enhancement of the greenhouse effect. It has led to a trend of unnatural warming of the Earth’s natural climate known as “global warming” or “climate change,” or, more accurately, “global climate disruption.” Emissions of these gases that induce global climate disruption are attributable to human activities in the industrial/manufacturing, energy, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors.
The global warming potential (GWP) is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere. Individual GHG compounds have varying GWP and atmospheric lifetimes. The reference gas for the GWP is CO2; CO2 has a GWP of one. The calculation of the CO2 equivalent (CO2e) is a consistent methodology for comparing GHG emissions since it normalizes various GHG emissions to a consistent metric. Methane’s warming potential of 25 indicates that methane has a 25 times greater warming effect than CO2 on a molecule per molecule basis. A CO2e is the mass emissions of an individual GHG multiplied by its GWP. GHGs are often presented in units of metric tons (tonnes) of CO2e.
4.7.1.1 Types of Greenhouse Gases
Carbon Dioxide (CO2): The natural production and absorption of CO2 is achieved through the terrestrial biosphere and the ocean. However, humankind has altered the natural carbon cycle by burning fossil coal, oil, and natural gas. Since the industrial revolution began in the mid-1700s, each of these activities has increased in scale and distribution.
Methane (CH4): CH4 has both natural and anthropogenic sources. It is released as part of the biological processes in low oxygen environments, such as in swamplands or in rice production (at
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.7-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
the roots of the plants). Over the last 50 years, human activities such as growing rice, raising cattle, using natural gas, and mining coal have added to the atmospheric concentration of methane. Other anthropogenic sources include fossil-fuel combustion and biomass burning.
Nitrous Oxide (N2O): N2O is produced naturally by microbial processes in soil and water, including those reactions that occur in nitrogen-containing fertilizer. In addition to agricultural sources, some industrial processes (fossil fuel-fired power plants, nylon production, nitric acid production, and vehicle emissions) also contribute to its atmospheric load. N2O is used as an aerosol spray propellant, e.g., in whipped cream bottles. It is also used in potato chip bags to keep chips fresh, in rocket engines and in racecars.
4.7.1.2 GHG Emissions Levels
Per the World Resources Institute64 (WRI) in 2013, total worldwide GHG emissions were estimated to be 45,261 million (M) tonnes (t) of CO2e (MtCO2e) and GHG emissions per capita worldwide were 6.31 tCO2e. The WRI reports that in 2012, total GHG emissions in the U.S. were 6,280 MtCO2e, with average GHG emissions per capita of 19.85 tCO2e and total GHG emissions in California were 444.3 MtCO2e in 2012, with average GHG emissions per capita of 11.67 tCO2e.
California has a larger percentage of its total GHG emissions coming from the transportation sector (47%) than the U.S. emissions (29%) and a smaller percentage of its total GHG emissions from the electricity generation sector, i.e. California has 11 percent but the U.S. has 31 percent.
4.7.1.3 GHG Thresholds
To provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance of GHG emissions in their CEQA documents, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Board adopted an Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules, and Plans.65 The Interim Guidance uses a tiered approach to determining significance. Although this Interim Guidance was developed primarily to apply to stationary source industrial projects where the SCAQMD is the lead agency under CEQA, in absence of more directly applicable policy, the SCAQMD’s Interim Guidance is often used as general guidance by local agencies to address the long-term adverse impacts associated with global climate change.
The SCAQMD proposes that if a project generates GHG emissions below 3,000 tCO2e annually, it could be concluded that the proposed project’s GHG contribution is not cumulatively considerable, and is therefore less than significant under CEQA. If the proposed project generates GHG emissions above the threshold, the analysis must identify mitigation measures to reduce GHG emissions.
4.7.2 Regulatory Setting
4.7.2.1 Federal Climate Change Regulations
The federal government has been involved in climate change issues at least since 1978, when Congress passed the National Climate Program Act (92 Stat. 601), under authority of which the National Research Council prepared a report predicting that additional increases in atmospheric
64 Climate Analysis Indicators Tool. International Dataset. World Resources Institute. http://www.wri.org/tools/cait/. Accessed April 2017. 65 Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules, and Plans. South Coast Air Quality Management Board. Adopted December 5, 2008.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.7-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
CO2 would lead to non-negligible changes in climate. At the “Earth Summit” in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, President George H. W. Bush signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), a nonbinding agreement among 154 nations to reduce atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other GHGs. The treaty was ratified by the U.S. Senate. However, when the UNFCCC signatories met in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan, and adopted a protocol that assigned mandatory targets for industrialized nations to reduce GHG emissions, the U.S. Senate expressed its opposition to the treaty. The Kyoto Protocol was not submitted to the Senate for ratification.
In 2007, Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al. (549 U.S. 497), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that CO2 was an air pollutant under the Clean Air Act, and that consequently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) had the authority to regulate its emissions. The Court also held that the Administrator must determine whether emissions of GHGs from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision. On April 24, 2009, the USEPA published its intention to find that: (1) the current and projected concentrations of the mix of six key GHGs—CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs and SF6—in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations, and (2) the combined emissions of GHG from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines contribute to the atmospheric concentrations of these key GHGs and hence to the threat of climate change (74 Fed. Reg. 18886). These findings are required for subsequent regulations that would control GHG emissions from motor vehicles.
4.7.2.2 Energy Independence and Security Act
On December 19, 2007, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA)66 was signed into law. Among other key measures, EISA will do the following, which would aid in the reduction of national GHG emissions, both mobile and non-mobile:
• Increase the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard requiring fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022.
• Prescribe or revise standards affecting regional efficiency for heating and cooling products, procedures for new or amended standards, energy conservation, energy efficiency labeling for consumer electronic products, residential boiler efficiency, electric motor efficiency, and home appliances.
• Require approximately 25 percent greater efficiency for light bulbs, by phasing out the incandescent light bulbs between 2012 and 2014; require approximately 200 percent greater efficiency for light bulbs, or similar energy savings, by 2020.
While superseded by National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and EPA actions described above, EISA also set miles per gallon (mpg) targets for cars and light trucks and directed the NHTSA to establish a fuel economy program for medium- and heavy-duty trucks and create a separate fuel economy standard for work trucks.
66 Energy Independence and Security Act. Public Law 110-140. Signed on December 19, 2007.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.7-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Additional provisions of the EISA address energy savings in government and public institutions, promoting research for alternative energy, additional research in carbon capture, international energy programs, and the creation of “green jobs.”
4.7.2.3 California Climate Change Regulations
Executive Order S-3-05 (GHG Emissions Reductions). Executive Order #S-3-05, signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on June 1, 2005, calls for a reduction in GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and for an 80% reduction in GHG emissions to below 1990 levels by 2050.
The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32). In September 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Health and Safety Code § 38500 et seq.), into law. AB 32 was intended to effectively end the scientific debate in California over the existence and consequences of global warming. In general, AB 32 directed the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to do the following:
• On or before June 30, 2007, publicly make available a list of discrete early action GHG emission reduction measures that can be implemented prior to the adoption of the statewide GHG limit and the measures required to achieve compliance with the statewide limit.
• By January 1, 2008, determine the statewide levels of GHG emissions in 1990, and adopt a statewide GHG emissions limit that is equivalent to the 1990 level (an approximately 25% reduction in existing statewide GHG emissions).
• On or before January 1, 2010, adopt regulations to implement the early action GHG emission reduction measures.
• On or before January 1, 2011, adopt quantifiable, verifiable, and enforceable emission reduction measures by regulation that will achieve the statewide GHG emissions limit by 2020, to become operative on January 1, 2012, at the latest. The emission reduction measures may include direct emission reduction measures, alternative compliance mechanisms, and potential monetary and non-monetary incentives that reduce GHG emissions from any sources or categories of sources as ARB finds necessary to achieve the statewide GHG emissions limit.
• Monitor compliance with and enforce any emission reduction measure adopted pursuant to AB 32.
• On December 11, 2008, the ARB approved the Climate Change Scoping Plan (ARB, 2008a) pursuant to AB 32. The Scoping Plan recommends a wide range of measures for reducing GHG emissions, including (but not limited to)
• Expanding and strengthening of existing energy efficiency programs.
• Achieving a statewide renewables energy mix of 33 percent.
• Developing a GHG emissions cap-and-trade program.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.7-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
• Establishing targets for transportation-related GHG emissions for regions throughout the state, and pursuing policies and incentives to meet those targets.
• Implementing existing state laws and policies, including California’s clean car standards, goods movement measures and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard.
• Targeted fees to fund the state’s long-term commitment to administering AB 32.
Executive Order S-01-07 (Low Carbon Fuel Standard). Executive Order #S-01-07 (January 18, 2007) established a statewide goal to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least 10% by 2020 through establishment of a Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Carbon intensity is the amount of CO2e per unit of fuel energy emitted from each stage of producing, transporting and using the fuel in a motor vehicle. On April 23, 2009, the Air Resources Board adopted a regulation to implement the standard.
Senate Bill 97. Senate Bill 97 was signed by the governor on August 24, 2007. The bill required the Office of Planning and Research (OPR), by July 1, 2009, to prepare, develop and transmit to the resources agency guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions, as required by CEQA, including, but not limited to, effects associated with transportation or energy consumption. On April 13, 2009 OPR submitted to the Secretary for Natural Resources its proposed amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines for GHG emissions. The Resources Agency adopted those guidelines on December 30, 2009, and they became effective on March 18, 2010. The amendments treat GHG emissions as a separate category of impacts; i.e. they are not to be addressed as part of an analysis of air quality impacts.
Section 15064.4, which was added to the CEQA Guidelines, specifies how the significance of impacts from GHGs is to be determined. First, the lead agency should “make a good faith effort” to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of GHG emissions resulting from a project. After that, the lead agency should consider the following factors when assessing the impacts of the GHG emissions on the environment:
• The extent to which the project may increase or reduce GHG emissions, relative to the existing environmental setting.
• Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project.
• The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions.
The OPR asked the ARB to make recommendations for GHG-related thresholds of significance. On October 24, 2008, the ARB issued a preliminary draft staff proposal for Recommended Approaches for Setting Interim Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases under the California Environmental Quality Act (CARB, 2008b). After holding two public workshops and receiving comments on the proposal, ARB staff decided not to proceed with threshold development (Ito, 2010). Quantitative significance thresholds, if any, are to be set by local agencies.
Senate Bill 375. Senate Bill 375 required coordination of land use and transportation planning to reduce GHG emissions from transportation sources. Regional transportation plans, which are
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.7-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS developed by metropolitan transportation organizations such as the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), are to include “sustainable community strategies” to reduce GHG emissions.
Title 24. The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations) were established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California's energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. Compliance with Title 24 will result in decreases in GHG emissions. The California Energy Commission (CEC) adopted the 2008 changes to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards on April 23, 2008, with an aim to promote the objectives listed below (CEC, 2008).67
• Provide California with an adequate, reasonably-priced and environmentally-sound supply of energy.
• Respond to Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which mandates that California must reduce its GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
• Pursue California energy policy that energy efficiency is the resource of first choice for meeting California's energy needs.
• Act on the findings of California's Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) that Standards are the most cost-effective means to achieve energy efficiency, expects the Building Energy Efficiency Standards to continue to be upgraded over time to reduce electricity and peak demand, and recognizes the role of the Standards in reducing energy related to meeting California's water needs and in reducing GHG emissions.
• Meet the West Coast Governors' Global Warming Initiative commitment to include aggressive energy efficiency measures into updates of state building codes.
• Meet the Executive Order in the Green Building Initiative to improve the energy efficiency of nonresidential buildings through aggressive standards.
The provisions of Title 24, Part 6 apply to all buildings for which an application for a building permit or renewal of an existing permit is required by law. They regulate design and construction of the building envelope, space-conditioning and water-heating systems, indoor and outdoor lighting systems of buildings, and signs located either indoors or outdoors. Title 24, Part 6 specifies mandatory, prescriptive and performance measures, all designed to optimize energy use in buildings and decrease overall consumption of energy to construct and operate residential and nonresidential buildings. Mandatory measures establish requirements for manufacturing, construction and installation of certain systems; equipment and building components that are installed in buildings.
Recent Developments: On May 22, 2014, the ARB approved the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan Pursuant to AB 32 (CARB, 2014). The updated scoping plan evaluates the effectiveness of policies from the original scoping plan and adds recommendations for expanding and improving upon those programs including, but not limited to:
67 The 2008 changes to Building Energy Efficiency Standards became effective January 1, 2010.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.7-6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
• Leveraging public money to fund technologies including medium and heavy duty Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEVs).
• Expanding local, regional, and state transportation plan goals to improve transit efficiency.
• Supporting the High-Speed Rail Authority and Sustainable Freight Strategy.
• Extending Low Carbon Fuel Standards beyond 2020 with more aggressive goals.
• Developing accurate methods for estimating agricultural emissions so that GHG reduction techniques can be assessed.
• Eliminating disposal of organic matter and promote methane recovery at landfills.
• Instituting the Forest Carbon Plan to model and understand the carbon cycle of forestry.
• Implementing economic incentives for the destruction of short-lived climate pollutants.
• Allowing limited future allowances for Cap-and-Trade to reduce cost spikes.
• Setting interim goals to reach GHG emissions of 80% of 1990 levels by 2050.
4.7.3 Discussion of Impacts a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than Significant Impact
Construction activities would create a temporary addition of GHGs to the regional air shed. Construction emissions were estimated for off-road exhaust; on-road exhaust emissions from employee commute and vendor activity; and exhaust emissions from the import/export of soil using methodologies presented in CalEEMod Version 2016.3.1 with activity information provided by the client and on-road emission factors from EMFAC2014 (v1.0.7) for applicable calendar years in the Los Angeles County portion of the South Coast Air Basin (detailed calculations are presented in Appendix H). Long-term operational GHG emissions would be minimal since the project only proposes improvements to existing facilities and does not generate additional operational activity. Table 4.7-1 shows the estimated total CO2e emissions from immediate and future construction activity from the proposed project.
Table 4.7-1 CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS
Project GHG Emissions (tonnes) Construction Year CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Football/Track Field 144.1 0.034 0.007 147.1 Sports Lighting 19.7 0.005 0.003 20.7
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.7-7 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Project GHG Emissions (tonnes) Construction Year CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Relocating Temp Buildings 57.2 0.016 0.002 58.2 Softball Field & Surface Courts 68.8 0.026 0.010 72.5 Athletic Pool 234.3 0.089 0.039 248.3
Total 524 0.17 0.06 547 Amortized Emissions 18.2 Source: OB-1 Air Analyses
GHG emissions from construction are amortized over the next 30 years for the purpose of estimating annual emissions. Since the SCAQMD proposes that if a project generates GHG emissions below 3,000 tonnes CO2e, it could be concluded that the proposed project’s GHG contribution is not “cumulatively considerable” and is therefore less than significant under CEQA. Based on the SCAQMD threshold, impacts due to GHG emissions would be less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
No Impact
The City of Long Beach does not have a plan that focuses principally on the emissions of GHGs. However, the City’s Sustainable City Action Plan,68 which was prepared by the City of Long Beach Sustainable City Commission and adopted by the City Council on February 2, 2010, sets many goals whose attainment would result in reductions in GHG emissions. The project was reviewed against the Sustainable City Action Plan, and no conflicts were found.
68 http://www.longbeach.gov/sustainability/nature-initiatives/action-plan/. Accessed August 10, 2017.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.7-8 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Less than Potentially Significant Less than No Would the project: Significant Impact with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the X routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and X accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within X one quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 or a list of hazardous substance release sites identified by the state Department of Health X Services pursuant to § 25356 of the Health & Safety Code and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? [PRC § 21151.8(a)(1)(B)] e) Does the project site contain a current or former hazardous waste disposal site or solid waste disposal site and, if X
so, have the wastes been removed? [PRC § 21151.8(a)(1)(A)] f) Is the proposed school site located on a site containing or underlain by X naturally occurring hazardous materials? g) Is the proposed school site situated within 2,000 feet of significant disposal X of hazardous waste? [CCR, Title 5 § 14010(t)]
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.8-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Less than Potentially Significant Less than No Would the project: Significant Impact with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated h) Does the proposed school site contain one or more pipelines, situated underground or aboveground, which carry hazardous substances, acutely hazardous materials or hazardous X wastes, unless the pipeline is a natural gas line that is used only to supply natural gas to that school or neighborhood? [PRC § 21151.8 (a)(1)(C)] i) Is the proposed school site located near an aboveground water or fuel storage tank or within 1,500 feet of an easement of an aboveground or X underground pipeline that can pose a safety hazard to the site? [CCR, Title 5 § 14010 (h)] j) Is the property line of the proposed school site less than the following distances from the edge of respective power line easements: (1) 100 feet for X 50-133 kV line; (2) 150 feet for 220- 230 kV line; or (3) 350 feet for 500- 550 kV line? [CCR, Title 5 § 14010(c)] k) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, X
would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? l) Is the proposed school site within two miles, measured by air line, of that point on an airport runway or potential runway included in an airport master plan that is nearest to X
the site? [Ed. Code § 17215 (a)&(b)] (Two nautical miles = 12,152 feet) (Does not apply to school sites acquired prior to January 1, 1996.) m) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people X
residing or working in the project area?
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.8-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Less than Potentially Significant Less than No Would the project: Significant Impact with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated n) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency X response plan or emergency evacuation plan? o) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including X where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? p) Is the school site in an area designated in a city, county, or city and county general plan for agricultural use and zoned for agricultural production, and if so, do neighboring agricultural uses have the potential to result in any X public health and safety issues that may affect the pupils and employees at the school site? [Ed. Code § 17215.5 (a)] (Does not apply to school sites approved by CDE prior to January 1, 1997).
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Less than Significant Impact
The proposed project would include the transport, storage, and use of chemical agents, solvents, paints, and other hazardous materials commonly associated with construction activities. Chemical transport, storage, and use would comply with Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); California Hazardous Waste Control Law;69 Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and Long Beach Fire Department (LBFD) requirements.
69 Codified in California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5, Hazardous Waste Control.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.8-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The operation of the proposed project is anticipated to include minimal use of hazardous materials, including janitorial and landscaping supplies, such as commercial cleansers, paints, lubricants and herbicides. The use of these materials would be subject to District guidelines and would be stored, handled, and disposed in accordance with applicable regulations. School operation would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of quantities of hazardous materials that may create a significant hazard to the public or environment.
A Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) would be prepared and submitted by the District to the LBFD if the quantity of hazardous materials onsite would equal or exceed 55 gallons of a liquid, 500 pounds of a solid, 200 cubic feet of gas at standard temperature and pressure (STP), or extremely hazardous substances above threshold planning quantities as required by the Emergency Planning Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) §§ 311 and 312.70, 71 The HMBP would include provisions for proper training for employees that would use, store and dispose of hazardous materials or waste, and safety procedures to be implemented in the unlikely event of unauthorized releases of hazardous materials. Based on the above analysis, potential impacts from the transport, storage, and use of chemical agents, solvents, paints, and other hazardous materials to the public or the environment would be less than significant.
The proposed project will include the excavation of soils during the replacement of existing sports fields and tennis courts and the construction of a new athletic pool. There is potential for hydraulic oil, lead, arsenic, and organochlorine pesticides in the soil. Organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) were commonly used as insecticides for termite control around structures constructed between 1948 and January 1, 1989, and school structures were commonly coated with lead-based paint (LBP) on or after January 1, 1993. Weathering, scraping, chipping, and abrasion may have caused lead to be released to soil around these structures. To satisfy California Education Code (CEC) §§ 17210, 17210.1, 17213.1, and 17213.2 and applicable guidance (DTSC, 2006), Leighton Consulting, Inc., on behalf of the District, collected soil samples at nine locations at approximately 0.5 to 1.0 foot below ground surface. Soil samples were analyzed for metals including lead, hydrocarbons, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and OCPs in keeping with DTSC guidance (DTSC, 2006). No hydrocarbons, PCBs, or VOC, were reported. Relatively low levels of metals and OCPS were detected, none exceeding current Federal or California Hazardous Waste Criteria.72
With compliance of applicable hazardous materials regulations, significant hazards to the public or the environment during construction and operation of the proposed project through (1) routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, (2) accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment, or (3) hazardous emissions, handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste in the vicinity of Polytechnic High School would be less than significant. d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 or a list of
70 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA)”. Internet URL: https://www.epa.gov/epcra. Accessed July 13, 2017. 71 A California Accidental Release Program (CalARP) Risk Management Plan (RMP) would not be needed because the quantity of hazardous material onsite would not exceed State Regulated Substance List threshold quantities specified in Title 19 California Code of Regulations (CCR), Division 2, Chapter 4.5 and Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 68. 72 Leighton Consulting, Inc. “Soil Sampling Report – Poly Track and Field Project Area, Long Beach Unified School District, Long Beach Polytechnic High School, 1600 Atlantic Avenue, Long Beach, California, 90813”, August 16, 2017.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.8-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
hazardous substance release sites identified by the state Department of Health Services pursuant to § 25356 of the Health & Safety Code and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) Does the project site contain a current or former hazardous waste disposal site or solid waste disposal site and, if so, have the wastes been removed?
No Impact
Government Code § 65962.5 requires the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to compile and update, at least annually, lists of the following:
• Hazardous waste and substances sites from the DTSC EnviroStor database.
• Leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites by county, and fiscal year from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker database.
• Solid waste disposal sites identified by the SWRCB with waste constituents above hazardous waste levels outside the waste management unit.
• SWRCB Cease and Desist Orders (CDOs) and Cleanup and Abatement Orders (CAOs).73
• Hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action by DTSC pursuant to Health and Safety Code (HSC) § 25187.5.74
Polytechnic High School is listed on the DTSC EnviroStor database. On January 16, 2014, LBUSD submitted a Preliminary Environmental Assessment (PEA) performed on the School’s Auditorium. During the PEA, elevated levels of lead from lead based paint and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from the on-site transformers were detected in surface soil between zero and two feet below ground surface. The response action included a Supplemental Site Investigation (SSI) to determine the nature and extent of contamination that may be followed by a removal or remedial action.
The SSI concluded that no further action was warranted and hence no restrictions should be placed on renovation of the Auditorium. Based on review of the SSI, neither a release of hazardous material nor the presence of a naturally occurring hazardous material which would pose a threat to public health or the environment under unrestricted land use was indicated at the Auditorium site. On November 19, 2014, DTSC concurred with the conclusions and approved the SSI.
Other than the listing described above, the database review75, 76 indicates there are no database listings of hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5, or a list of hazardous substance release sites identified by the state Department of Health Services pursuant to § 25356 of the Health & Safety Code on the proposed project site, or a hazardous waste disposal site on the proposed project site. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
73 CDOs and CAOs may be issued for discharges of domestic sewage, food processing wastes, or sediment that do not contain hazardous materials, 74 If corrective action is not taken on or before the date specified in a CDO or CAO, or if immediate corrective action is necessary to remedy or prevent an imminent substantial danger to the public health, domestic livestock, wildlife, or the environment, the DTSC may take, or contract for, corrective action and recover the cost from a responsible party. 75 http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/. Accessed July 2017. 76 http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. Accessed July 2017.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.8-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
f) Is the proposed school site located on a site containing or underlain by naturally occurring hazardous materials?
g) Is the proposed school site situated within 2,000 feet of significant disposal of hazardous waste?
h) Does the proposed school site contain one or more pipelines, situated underground or aboveground, which carry hazardous substances, acutely hazardous materials or hazardous wastes, unless the pipeline is a natural gas line that is used only to supply natural gas to that school or neighborhood?
No Impact
No evidence for mines, debris, naturally occurring hazardous materials or pipelines containing hazardous substances, acutely hazardous materials or hazardous wastes within the project site was observed or reported. A review of regulatory databases indicated there was no significant disposal of hazardous waste reported within 2,000 feet of the project site. A review of the National Pipeline Mapping system found no evidence for pipelines containing hazardous liquids traversing the project site.77 Based on these findings, no impact from naturally occurring hazardous materials or hazardous materials disposal would be anticipated. i) Is the proposed school site located near an aboveground water or fuel storage tank or within 1,500 feet of an easement of an aboveground or underground pipeline that can pose a safety hazard to the site?
Less than Significant Impact
Potable water to the site is provided by underground distribution system. The Polytechnic High School campus does not contain an above ground water tank. A review of the National Pipeline Mapping system found no evidence for pipelines containing hazardous liquids traversing the project site.78 The nearest hazardous liquid pipeline is approximately 183 feet north of the project site parallel to Pacific Coast Highway.
In 1981, the California Legislature established the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act so that the Office of the State Fire Marshal may exercise exclusive safety regulatory and enforcement authority over intrastate hazardous liquid pipelines. The Office of the State Fire Marshal currently regulates the safety of approximately 6,500 miles of intrastate hazardous liquid transportation pipelines. The Pipeline Safety Division consists of engineers, analytical staff, and clerical support located in northern, central and southern California. Pipeline Safety staff inspect pipeline operators to ensure compliance with federal and state pipeline safety laws and regulations. The Division is also responsible for the investigation of all spills, ruptures, fires, or pipeline incidents for cause and determination of probable violation.79 In addition, the federal Transportation Security Administration Pipeline Security Division has (1) assessed risk and prioritized efforts to help strengthen pipeline security, (2) implemented agency guidance and requirements of the
77 https://www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov/. Accessed July 13, 2017. 78 https://www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov/. Accessed July 13, 2017. 79 http://osfm.fire.ca.gov/pipeline/pipeline. Accessed July 13, 2017.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.8-6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Commission Act) regarding pipeline security, and (3) measured its performance in strengthening pipeline security.80
Based on these programs, underground pipelines are sufficiently regulated so that the safety hazard posed to the public by nearby underground pipelines is less than significant.
j) Is the property line of the proposed school site less than the following distances from the edge of respective power line easements: (1) 100 feet for 50-133 kV line; (2) 150 feet for 220-230 kV line; or (3) 350 feet for 500-550 kV line?
No Impact
Based on a site visit on July 18, 2017, by Sloane Seferyn (UltraSystems biologist), the project site is not located within 100 feet of a 50-133 kilo-volt (kV) line, 150 feet of a 220-230 kV line, or 350 feet of a 500-550 kV line. Therefore, no impact would occur. k) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? l) Is the proposed school site within two miles, measured by air line, of that point on an airport runway or potential runway included in an airport master plan that is nearest to the site? m) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact
The project site is not in the vicinity of a private airstrip. The Long Beach Airport is approximately 2.25 miles northeast of the project site (refer to Figure 4.8-1). The project site is outside the Airport Influence Area established by the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission.81 For these reasons, no impact is expected due to the potential safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area due to the proximity of an airport.
80 https://www.tsa.gov/for-industry/surface-transportation. Accessed July 13, 2017. 81 Long Beach Airport Influence Area, May 13, 2003. Available at: http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/project/aluc_airport-long-beach.pdf Accessed June 26, 2017.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.8-7 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Figure 4.8-1 NEAREST AIRPORT
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.8-8 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
n) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant Impact
The proposed project would not impair or physically interfere with the City of Long Beach emergency preparedness plans, which provide for an effective response to multi-agency and multi- jurisdiction emergencies.82 Polytechnic High School students and faculty would comply with applicable emergency plans, and would not obstruct the City’s evacuation routes or impede emergency ingresses or egresses. For these reasons, the potential for the project to impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan would be less than significant. o) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
No Impact
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE) developed Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) for State Responsibility Areas (SRA) and Local Responsibility Areas (LRA). The project site is not located in a designated FHSZ for SRA or LRA areas. The proposed project would include required fire suppression design features identified in the latest edition of the CBC, and would comply with California’s Division of the State Architect (DSA) and LBFD requirements. With adherence to applicable regulations and the proximity to the nearest fire station, no impacts due to wildland fire exposure would be anticipated.
p) Is the school site in an area designated in a city, county, or city and county general plan for agricultural use and zoned for agricultural production, and if so, do neighboring agricultural uses have the potential to result in any public health and safety issues that may affect the pupils and employees at the school site?
No Impact
The project site is in an area designated for Institutional District (I). The project site is located on campus of an existing high school in a completely urban setting containing a mix of institutional, commercial, and residential uses. No agricultural land or land zoned for agricultural use is located within the project boundary or in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, no impact would occur.
82 http://www.longbeach.gov/DisasterPreparedness/Help-Preparing/Emergency-Preparedness-Plans. Accessed June 26, 2017. 6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.8-9 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017
Hydrology and Water Quality
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
Less than Potentially Significant Less than No Would the project: Significant Impact with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Violate any water quality standards or X waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table X level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a X stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alternation of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase X the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or X provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water X quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate X Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect X flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a X result of the failure of a levee or dam, or dam inundation?
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.9-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 Hydrology and Water Quality
Less than Potentially Significant Less than No Would the project: Significant Impact with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated j) Cause inundation by seiche, tsunami, or X mudflow?
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Less than Significant Impact
Development of the proposed project may result in two types of water quality impacts: (1) short- term impacts due to construction related discharges; and (2) long-term impacts from operation or changes in site runoff characteristics. Runoff may carry on-site surface pollutants to water bodies such as lakes, streams, and rivers that ultimately drain to the ocean. Projects that increase urban runoff may indirectly increase local and regional flooding intensity and erosion.
Construction Pollutants Control
Construction of the proposed project would include the transport, storage, and use of chemical agents, solvents, paints, and other hazardous materials commonly associated with construction activities. Chemical transport, storage, and use would comply with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); California’s Hazardous Waste Control laws83; Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA), Long Beach Fire Department, and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements.
Construction projects typically expose soil to erosion and may temporarily alter drainage patterns. Storm water runoff during construction may contain soil amendments such as fertilizers and pesticides, entrained soil, trash, waste oil, paints, solvents and other substances used during construction. Section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) requires projects that would disturb one acre or more of soil to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit. As part of the permit conditions, the District is required to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), which identifies site-specific best management practices (BMPs) to eliminate or reduce pollutants and soil in storm water and non- storm water discharges from the construction site. The NPDES permit requires enforceable limits on discharges, effluent monitoring, annual reporting, and construction and post-construction BMPs to eliminate or reduce point and non-point source discharges of pollutants.
For these reasons, potential violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements would be less than significant during project construction.
83 California’s Health and Safety Code, Division 20. Miscellaneous Health and Safety Provisions, §§ 24000-26204, Chapter 6.5. Hazardous Waste Control.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.9-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 Hydrology and Water Quality
Operational Pollutant Controls
NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permits mandated by the FWPCA require new development and significant redevelopment projects to incorporate post-construction BMPs to comply with the local Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and/or Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to reduce the quantity of rainfall runoff and improve the quality of water that leaves a site. The local SUSMP requires new developments to implement appropriate routine structural and nonstructural BMPs. Examples of routine structural BMPs include filtration, common area runoff minimizing landscape, energy dissipaters, inlet trash racks, and catch basins. Routine nonstructural BMPs include litter control, inspection and maintenance of catch basins, and spill contingency plans.
For these reasons, potential violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements would be less than significant during project operation. b) Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
Less than Significant Impact
Development of the proposed project would not result in substantial changes in the quantity of existing groundwater supplies because no groundwater extraction activities would occur. The proposed project does not involve an increase in student capacity or associated increase in water usage. While the new swimming pool would increase the amount of water used at the project site, the replacement of the existing grass turf with synthetic fields will reduce the amount of water used for irrigation. Furthermore, the proposed outdoor swimming pool would replace an existing indoor pool located on campus. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to significantly increase water usage, including groundwater supplies.
Based on the geotechnical field investigation (ASE, 2017), historic depth to groundwater beneath the site is 25 to 30 feet below site grade, and would not be a constraint for the proposed design, construction, or development of the proposed project site. The City of Long Beach Water Department would supply the facilities with water and no water supply wells would be constructed or used.
For these reasons, impacts on groundwater supplies or recharge would be less than significant. c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Less than Significant Impact
The project site is located on the grounds of the existing Polytechnic High School campus that is served by a developed stormwater drainage system located in the surrounding streets. No substantial changes in the existing drainage pattern of the area are proposed, and no streams,
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.9-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 Hydrology and Water Quality
rivers, or drainage channels that contribute runoff to the local drainage network would be impacted by the project. Therefore, less than significant impacts are anticipated. d) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alternation of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Less than Significant Impact
No streams or rivers are located adjacent to or within the project site. Runoff from the project site currently discharges to storm drains in surrounding streets, which are designed to accommodate project runoff volumes. Post-construction BMPs would be adopted to minimize runoff and potential pollutants from the project site, and enhance subsurface infiltration. For these reasons, the potential for the project to: (1) substantially alter the existing drainage pattern, (2) result in on- or off-site flooding, (3) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems, (4) provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or (5) substantially degrade water quality would be less than significant. g) Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact
The majority of the project site is in Federal Emergency Management Area (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Zone X, Area of Minimal Flood Hazard. A small portion of the project site, located at the northeast corner of the campus, is in FEMA FIRM, Zone X, 0.2 Percent Annual Chance of Flood Hazard. Both of these areas are outside the 100-year flood zone (refer to Figure 4.9-1). Zone X is characterized as moderate to low risk areas for FEMA flood hazard zones. Flood Zone X identifies “areas outside the one percent annual chance floodplain, areas of one percent annual chance sheet flow flooding where average depths are less than one foot, areas of one percent annual chance stream flooding where the contributing drainage area is less than one square mile, or areas protected from the one percent annual chance flood by levees.”84 The proposed project site is a public facility and would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary, FEMA FIRM, or other flood hazard delineation map. No impacts on housing or flood-flow as a result of the proposed project are anticipated.
84 http://www.vbgov.com/government/departments/communications-info- tech/maps/Documents/FEMA_FIRM_Maps/Definitions%20of%20FEMA%20Flood%20Zone%20Designations.pdf/. Accessed June 26, 2017.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.9-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 Hydrology and Water Quality Figure 4.9-1 ZONE X FLOOD HAZARD AREA
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.9-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 Hydrology and Water Quality
i) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, or dam inundation?
Less than Significant Impact
The project site is not within a 100-year flood hazard area. According to the California Emergency Management Agency, the proposed project site is in an area of low hazard for flooding. No people or structures would be exposed to a significant risk of loss or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. For these reasons, exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, or dam inundation would be less than significant. j) Would the project cause inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No Impact
A Seiche is an oscillating wave caused by wind, tidal forces, earthquakes, landslides and other phenomena in a closed or partially closed water body such as a river, lake, reservoir, pond, and other large inland water body. Tsunamis are long wave-length, earthquake-generated ocean waves. Mudflows are fast-moving landslides composed of mud and debris, typically caused by heavy rainfall or melting snow on steep hillsides.
According to the California Emergency Management Agency, the project site is not within a Tsunami Inundation Area for Emergency Planning.85 Because there are no existing large water storage reservoirs or other inland water bodies in the vicinity of the proposed project site, hazards from a seiche are considered negligible. The project site is not within a landslide hazard zone (refer to Figure 4.6-3 in Section 4.6 of this Initial Study). The potential for seismically-induced landslides or mud debris flows within or near the proposed project site is considered negligible. For these reasons, no impacts from inundation by a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow are anticipated.
85 State of California, Department of Conservation, Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, Long Beach Quadrangle, March 1, 2009. Available at http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geologic_hazards/Tsunami/Inundation_Maps/LosAngeles/Documents/Tsuna mi_Inundation_LongBeach_Quad_LosAngeles.pdf/. Accessed on June 26, 2017.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.9-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 Land Use and Planning
4.10 Land Use and Planning
Less than Potentially Significant Less than No Would the project: Significant Impact with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Physically divide an established X community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the X general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural X community conservation plan? d) Would the proposed school conflict with any existing or proposed land uses, such that a potential health or X safety risk to students would be created?
a) Would the project physically divide an established community?
No Impact
A significant impact would occur if the proposed project were sufficiently large or configured in such a way as to create a physical barrier within an established community.
The proposed project is located in the Institutional Zoning District and designated as Institutional land use on the City of Long Beach General Plan Land Use Map. The proposed project would include improvement and modernization of the existing athletic field facilities located at the Polytechnic High School campus. The project site is located in a highly urbanized area and, surrounded by single and multi-family residential land uses. The proposed project would not alter the existing street grid surrounding the project site or surrounding area. Furthermore, no residential uses would be displaced by project-related activities and the physical arrangement of the surrounding community would not be modified or divided.
Therefore, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community and no impacts would occur.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.10-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 Land Use and Planning
b) Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
No Impact
As mentioned in a) above, the proposed project is located within an area designated as Institutional District on the City’s General Plan Land Use Map. The project includes improvement and modernization of the existing athletic field facilities located at the Polytechnic High School campus. The proposed improvements would also include relocation of existing portable buildings and tennis courts and construction of a new athletic swimming pool on site.
The proposed project is consistent with the policies of the General Plan and located within a consistent land use designation. Additionally, as discussed in Sections 4.1 through 4.18, of this Initial Study, the project would be consistent with all applicable plans, policies or regulations that have been adopted by local, county, regional, state or federal agencies with jurisdiction over this project for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
Furthermore, the California Supreme Court held that public school districts are a matter of statewide concern and that school districts, being local agencies of the state, are not subject to municipal construction regulations when engaged in such sovereign activities as the construction of school buildings.86 It was subsequently held that school districts were likewise exempt from municipal zoning ordinances and that the state had occupied the field of schools through general laws contained in the Education and Government Codes.87
For these reasons, the project would not conflict with any existing state, regional, county, or local laws, policies, regulations, plans or guidelines. Therefore, no impact would occur.
c) Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
No Impact
The project site is located in a highly urbanized area and does not contain any significant natural habitat. The project site is not located within an area subject to a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Thus, the proposed project would not generate a conflict with any such plans and no impact would occur.
d) Would the proposed school conflict with any existing or proposed land uses, such that a potential health or safety risk to students would be created?
No Impact
As discussed in a) and b), the proposed project is a permitted and compatible use in the Institutional Zoning District designated for the project site by the City of Long Beach. The area
86 See Hall v. City of Taft (1956) 47 Cal.2d 177 [302 P.2d 574]. 87 See Town of Atherton v. Superior Court (1958) 159 Cal.App.2d 417 [324 P.2d 328].
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.10-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 Land Use and Planning
immediately northwest of the site is zoned as R-3-T, Multi-family Residential for Townhouses; northeast is zoned as CHW, Regional Highway Commercial and CNR, Neighborhood Commercial and Residential; east is zoned as R-3-4, Low-density Multi-family Residential and R-3-S, Low- density Multi-family Residential, small lot; southeast is zoned as P, Park; south is zoned as R-1-N, Single-family Residential, standard lot; southwest is zoned as CO, Office Commercial; and west is zoned as I, Institutional and CO, Office Commercial.
Existing development at the project site includes relocatable (portable) buildings, softball and baseball fields, a track and field, and tennis and basketball courts, currently used by students of the Polytechnic High School. The project proposes improvement and modernization of existing athletic fields, relocation of portable buildings and tennis courts and construction of an athletic swimming pool on site. The proposed improvements would not conflict with school, residential and commercial uses in the surrounding area. The area surrounding the project site is already developed and currently no new developments are proposed in the vicinity of the project. Therefore, the proposed school would not conflict with existing or proposed land uses, such that a potential health or safety risk to students would be created and no impacts would occur.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.10-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 Mineral Resources
4.11 Mineral Resources
Less than Potentially Significant Less than Would the project: Significant Impact with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be X of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local X general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State?
b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
No Impact
Assessment of mineral resources is based on the State of California's Mineral Land Classification/Designation Program established after the adoption of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) in 1975. The primary objectives of SMARA are the assurance of adequate supplies of mineral resources important to California's economy and the reclamation of mined lands. These objectives are implemented through land use planning and regulatory programs administered by local government with the assistance of the Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey (CGS). Information on the location of important mineral deposits is developed by the CGS through a land use planning process termed mineral land classification.
According to the SMARA Generalized Mineral Land Classification Map for Los Angeles County, the project site is classified within SMARA designated Mineral Resource Zone-4 (MRZ-4 defined as area of unknown resource potential, refer to Figure 4.11-1).88 Based on review of the conservation element of the Long Beach General Plan (Long Beach, 1973) and the DOC, Division of Oil, Gas and Thermal Resources mapping,89 the project site is not located within a known oil and gas field or in the vicinity of oil and gas wells (refer to Figure 4.11-2).
The project site is located on grounds of the Polytechnic High School campus in the City of Long Beach. The project site has been previously developed with athletic fields and uses characteristic of
88 http://www.consrv.ca.gov/smgb/Guidelines/Documents/ClassDesig.pdf Accessed on August 11, 2017. Note: MRZ-1 are areas of no significant mineral resource deposits, MRZ-2 are areas that contain identified mineral resources, MRZ-3 are areas of undetermined mineral resource significance, and MRZ-4 are areas of unknown resource potential. 89 http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dog/geothermal/maps/Pages/Index.aspx#g1. Accessed on August 11, 2017.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.11-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 Mineral Resources
a high school campus. Implementation of the project activities will resurface and relocate existing sports fields on the project site but will not expand onto undeveloped property.
For these reasons, no impacts are anticipated to: (1) the availability of known mineral resources of value to the region or state residents, or (2) a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.11-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 Mineral Resources
Figure 4.11-1 MINERAL RESOURCES
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.11-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 MINERAL RESOURCES
Figure 4.11-2 OIL AND GAS FIELDS
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.11-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 NOISE
4.12 Noise
Less than Potentially Significant Less than Would the project result in: Significant Impact with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise level in excess of standards established in the local general plan or X noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or X groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project X vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the X project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, X would the project expose people who reside or work in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people who reside or work in X the project area to excessive noise levels? g) Is the proposed school site located adjacent to or near a major arterial roadway or freeway whose noise X generation may adversely affect the education program?
4.12.1 Noise Fundamentals
Sound is a pressure wave transmitted through the air. It is described in terms of loudness or amplitude (measured in decibels), frequency or pitch (measured in hertz [Hz] or cycles per second), and duration (measured in seconds or minutes). The decibel (dB) scale is a logarithmic scale that describes the physical intensity of the pressure vibrations that make up any sound. The pitch of the sound is related to the frequency of the pressure vibration. Because the human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies, a special frequency-dependent rating scale is used to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) provides this compensation by discriminating against upper and lower frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.12-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 NOISE
the human ear. The scale is based on a reference pressure level of 20 micropascals (zero dBA). The scale ranges from zero (for the average least perceptible sound) to about 130 (for the average human pain level).
4.12.2 Noise Measurement Scales
Several rating scales have been developed to analyze adverse effects of community noise on people. Since environmental noise fluctuates over time, these scales consider that the effect of noise on people depends largely upon the total acoustical energy content of the noise, as well as the time of day when the noise occurs. Those that are applicable to this analysis are as follows:
• Leq, the equivalent noise level, is an average of sound level over a defined time period (such as 1 minute, 15 minutes, 1 hour or 24 hours). Thus, the Leq of a time-varying noise and that of a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear during exposure.
• L90 is a noise level that is exceeded 90 percent of the time at a given location; it is often used as a measure of “background” noise.
• CNEL, the Community Noise Equivalent Level, is a 24-hour average Leq with a 4.77-A- weighted decibel (dBA) “penalty” added to noise during the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and a 10-dBA penalty added to noise during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime (Caltrans, 2013). The logarithmic effect of these additions is that a 60-dBA 24-hour Leq would result in a calculation of 66.7 dBA CNEL.
• Ldn, the day-night average noise, is a 24-hour average Leq with an additional 10-dBA “penalty” added to noise that occurs between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. The Ldn metric yields values within 1 dBA of the CNEL metric. As a matter of practice, Ldn and CNEL values are considered to be equivalent and are treated as such in this assessment.
4.12.3 Existing Noise
The project site is located in a highly urbanized area and is surrounded by single and multifamily residential land uses. The predominant noise source is automobile and truck traffic on Atlantic Avenue, which bounds the school on the west, and on neighborhood streets.
On Wednesday, July 19, 2017, UltraSystems conducted short-term ambient noise sampling at eight locations in the general project area; these are shown in Figure 4.12-1. Table 4.12-1 lists the measurement points, sampling locations, and measurement results. Details of the ambient sampling methods and results are provided in Appendix J.
The samples were taken between 9:11 a.m. and 12:05 p.m. The 15-minute Leq values ranged from 48.1 to 66.2 dBA. The measurement location for the minimum value was Point 1, which is located the farthest away from any public road. The maximum ambient noise level was measured at Point 5, which is at a residence across Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue from the school.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.12-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 NOISE
Figure 4.12-1 NOISE MONITORING LOCATIONS
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.12-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 NOISE
Table 4.12-1 MEASURED AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
Measurement Results (dBA) Point Sampling Location 15-Minute Leq Lmax L90 On the campus parking lot that is located on the northwestern edge of the campus, 1 48.1 59.8 44.6 approximately 100 feet east of the apartments located on the north side of the campus. On the campus service road that is located on 2 the northern edge of the campus, approximately 50.9 75.0 45.4 12 feet south of Aqua Venture Inn.
Approximately 4 feet from the home at 820 15th 3 54.2 67.8 47.9 Street, located south of the campus
Approximately 15 feet from the home at 920 4 59.4 72.9 51.4 15th Street, located south of the campus.
Approximately 17 feet from the Fun Center at 5 1520 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue, located 66.2 84.8 52.1 east of the campus. Approximately 10 feet from the California 6 Recreation Park Facility at 1550 Martin Luther 61.9 76.0 51.1 King Jr. Avenue, located east of the campus. Approximately 15 feet from the home at 1720 7 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue, located east of 64.8 88.5 49.9 the campus. Approximately 10 feet from Love Unlimited 8 Community Church at 1760 Martin Luther King 64.9 82.7 52.2 Jr. Avenue, located east of the campus. Source: UltraSystems, 2017.
4.12.4 Sensitive Land Uses
The City of Long Beach General Plan, Noise Element explicitly defines only four land uses that are especially sensitive to noise: residential, hospitals, libraries, and schools.90 The existing sensitive receptors that are nearest to the proposed project site are listed in Table 4.12-2. These receivers would be exposed to noise during project construction and operations.
90 Long Beach General Plan, Noise Element, p. 136.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.12-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 NOISE
Table 4.12-2 NEAREST EXISTING SENSITIVE RECEIVERS
Smallest Distance from Location With Respect to Project Sensitive Land Use Proposed Improvements Features (Feet) Residential Neighborhoods On all sides of the project site 70 On the east side of Martin Luther King Jr California Recreation Park 60 Avenue from the project site Adjacent to the north side of the project Motels on Pacific Coast Highway 420 site Love Unlimited Community On the east side of Martin Luther King Jr. 320 Church Avenue from the project site Source: UltraSystems with Google Earth. 2017.
4.12.5 Regulatory Setting
The proposed project would be located in Long Beach, California. The primary regulatory documents that establish noise standards in the City of Long Beach are the General Plan Noise Element91 and the Municipal Code. The Noise Element was adopted in 1975 and has not been updated since. The element’s information on the existing noise environment is obsolete and was not considered in this analysis. However, the goals and objectives of the noise element have served as guidance for noise controls established through the Long Beach Municipal Code (LBMC). Finally, the Noise Element lists noise control techniques for all the major types of noise sources affecting the city.
Most of the noise-related provisions of the LBMC are in Chapter 8.80, Noise. Only those provisions relevant to the present noise analysis will be discussed here. §§ 8.80.50 and 8.80.60 set limits on exterior noise exposure in five “districts,” each with a predominant type of noise receiver.92 The project site is in District One, which is “predominantly residential with other land use types also present.”93 Table 4.12-3 summarizes the limits, which apply to noise generated on one property (or in a public area) and received on another property. The Municipal Code allows an upward adjustment in the permissible noise exposures when normal ambient levels exceed the limits shown.94 Both original and adjusted limits for daytime residential exposure are shown in Table 4.12-3.
91 Long Beach General Plan, Noise Element. 1975. 92 A map of the districts is in § 8.80.150 of the Municipal Code. 93 City of Long Beach Municipal Code § 8.80.150 - Exterior Noise limits—Sound Levels by Receiving Land Use District. Table A, Exterior Noise Limits. 94 City of Long Beach Municipal Code, § 8.80.150(C).
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.12-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 NOISE
Table 4.12-3 MAXIMUM ALLOWED EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS FOR VARIOUS EXPOSURE PERIODS
dBA, for Periods Exceeding: Receiving Land Use District Time Period 30 min. 15 min. 5 min. 1 min. Anytimea 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 50 55 60 65 70 (Unadjusted to : District One Ambient Values) Predominantly 7:00 a.m. to residential with other Exterior 10:00 p.m. land use types also 60 60 60 65 70 (Adjusted to present Ambient Values) 10:00 p.m. to 45 50 55 60 65 7:00 a.m. District Two: 7:00 a.m. to 60 65 70 75 80 Predominantly 10:00 p.m. commercial with Exterior 10:00 p.m. to other land use types 55 60 65 70 75 7:00 a.m. also present District Three: Predominantly industrial with other Exterior Anytime 65 70 75 80 85 land use types also present District Four: Predominantly industrial with other Exterior Anytime 70 75 80 85 90 land use types also present District Five: Airport, freeways and waterways Not subject to Long Beach Municipal Code Noise Limits regulated by other agencies Source: City of Long Beach Municipal Code §§ 8.80.150 and 8.80.160. a Or the maximum measured ambient level, for any period of time.
The General Plan, Noise Element suggests that, during daytime construction activities, “average maximum noise levels outside the nearest building, at the window of the occupied room closest to the site boundary, should not exceed 70 dBA in areas away from main roads and sources of industrial noise.”95 This is not, however, a provision of the Municipal Code. § 8.80.202 of the LBMC addresses construction noise. Noise-producing construction activity is limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. No construction equipment of any type may be used on Sundays. Federal holidays are considered weekdays. The LBMC provides for Sunday work permits, which allow construction activities from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. There are no noise limit relaxations or exemptions for construction.
Neither the City of Long Beach General Plan Noise Element nor the Municipal Code contains a chart of acceptable long-term exposure levels. Instead, the Noise Element recommends the limits shown
95 Long Beach General Plan, Noise Element, p. 95.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.12-6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 NOISE
in Table 4.12-4. Note that specifying separate Ldn values for daytime and nighttime contradicts the definition of Ldn, which is a 24-hour weighted average.
Table 4.12-4 RECOMMENDED CRITERIA FOR MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE NOISE LEVELS
Outdoor Indoor Major Land Use Type Lmax L10 L50 Ldn Residential (7 a.m. – 10 p.m.) 70 55 45 45 Residential (10 p.m. – 7 a.m.) 60 45 35 35 Commercial (Anytime) 75 65 55 None Industrial (Anytime) 85 70 60 None Source: City of Long Beach General Plan, Noise Element, p.137. 1975.
For ambient measurement sites in the residential areas surrounding Long Beach Polytechnic High School, Lmax exceeds the criterion of 70 dBA, without the project.
4.12.6 Thresholds of Significance for this Analysis
There are two criteria for judging noise impacts. First, noise levels generated by the proposed project must comply with all relevant federal, state and local standards and regulations. Noise impacts on the surrounding community are limited by local noise ordinances, which are implemented through investigations in response to nuisance complaints. It is assumed that all existing regulations for the construction and operation of the proposed project would be enforced. In addition, the proposed project should not produce noise levels that are incompatible with adjacent noise sensitive land uses as defined in the City of Long Beach General Plan Noise Element.
The second measure of impact used in this analysis is the significant increase in noise levels above existing ambient noise levels as a result of the introduction of a new noise source. An increase in noise level due to a new noise source has a potential to adversely impact people.
Based on the applicable noise regulations stated above, the proposed project would have a significant noise impact if it would:
• Conflict with applicable noise restrictions or standards imposed by regulatory agencies.
• Cause the permanent ambient noise level at the property line of an affected land use to increase by 3 dBA CNEL.
• Contribute to a significant cumulative noise impact.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.12-7 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 NOISE
4.12.7 Discussion of Impacts a) Would the project expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated
Construction
Noise impacts from construction activities are a function of the noise generated by the operation of construction equipment and on-road delivery and worker commuter vehicles, the location of equipment, and the timing and duration of the noise-generating activities. For the purpose of this analysis, it was estimated that the construction of the proposed project would be conducted in two phases, with Phase 1 being completed over a three-year period starting in the fourth quarter of 2017 and Phase 2 being completed over a one year period starting in 2025.96
Methods used for estimating construction noise impacts are presented in Appendix J. UltraSystems estimated noise exposures for each proposed improvement that would be implemented as part of the proposed project that consists of: track and field improvements; installation of sports lighting for the track and field facility; relocation of portables to east side of track and field facility; relocation of tennis courts to north side of track and field facility; softball field and surface court improvements; and installation of pool. Each improvement includes a different mix of construction equipment.
Table 4.12-5 summarizes the maximum construction-related short-term noise exposures at the receivers at which ambient exposures were measured. Attenuation due to the existing walls between some of the off-site receivers and the school site was not taken into account
Table 4.12-5 ESTIMATED ONE-HOUR CONSTRUCTION NOISE EXPOSURES AT NEAREST SENSITIVE RECEIVERS Exposure Adjusted One-Hour Increase Nearest Construction Phase Standard Exposure Above Receivera (dBA Leq) (dBA Leq) Ambient (dBA) Track & Field Improvements 6 61.9 77.8 15.9 Installation of Track & Field Lighting 6 61.9 68.0 6.1 Relocation of Portables 5 66.2 74.7 8.5 Relocation of Tennis Courts 4 60 77.2 17.8 Softball Field and Surface Court 3 60 75.2 21.0 Improvements Installation of Pool 4 60 74.4 15.0 aSee Figure 4.12-1 for receiver locations. Source: FHWA’s RCNM Version 1.1.
96 Approximate starting and completion dates for major construction phases were obtained from Section 2.3 of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. These milestones were adjusted to be consistent with the phase durations estimated by the CalEEMod emissions model as part of the air quality analysis.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.12-8 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 NOISE
As noted above, the Long Beach Municipal Code limits construction activities to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. This would preclude construction noise exposures during the evening and nighttime hours, when people are most sensitive to noise. The worst-case noise levels shown in Table 4.12-5 would be limited to short periods of time during the limited construction period for the proposed project. Nevertheless, short-term absolute exposures and exposure increases are potentially significant and need to be mitigated. Implementation of the following measures will result in a less than significant impact from construction activities:
N-1 If residents complain of excessive noise during construction, then the District will conduct noise monitoring in the residential area of concern during the suspected noise-producing construction activities. If the monitored noise levels exceed regulatory noise restrictions or standards, then the District will mitigate noise levels using temporary noise shields, noise barriers or other mitigation measures to comply with those restrictions or standards.
N-2 The construction contractor will ensure that all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, is properly operating (tuned-up) and that mufflers are working adequately.
N-3 Construction activities will not occur between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Mondays through Thursdays; between the hours of 7:00 p.m. on Fridays and 9:00 a.m. Saturdays; after 6 p.m. on Saturdays, and anytime on. No permit for construction activity during these prohibited hours will be sought.
N-4 Construction equipment will not be allowed to idle for more than five minutes when not in use.
Operation
The proposed project would relocate the tennis courts, pool, and portables that may generate onsite noise sources at new locations on the project site. The track and field facility would also be partially relocated away from the nearest off-site sensitive receptors. However, the new lighting installed on the track and field facility would result in the facility being utilized during evening hours, which currently does not occur.
In order to calculate the noise levels at the nearest off-site receptors to the proposed locations of the track and field facility, tennis courts, pool, and portables, reference noise measurements were taken at similar facilities. The reference noise measurement printouts are provided in Appendix J. A standard noise propagation rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance was then utilized to calculate the noise level at the nearest off-site sensitive receptor. The results are shown in Table 4.12-6.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.12-9 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 NOISE
Table 4.12-6 ESTIMATED ONE-HOUR OPERATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURES AT NEAREST SENSITIVE RECEIVERS
Exposure Ambient One-Hour Increase Nearest Relocated Facility Noise Exposure Above Receivera (dBA Leq) (dBA Leq) Ambient (dBA) Track & Field 6 61.9 57.3 1.3 Tennis Courts 7 64.8 22.4 0.00025 Pool 4 59.4 53.2 0.09 Wall Mounted HVAC Units on 5 66.2 44.8 0.03 Portables aSee Figure 4.12-1 for receiver locations. Source: FHWA’s RCNM Version 1.1.
As shown in Table 4.12-6, the proposed facilities to be relocated would generate noise levels at the nearest off-site sensitive receptors that are below the existing ambient noise levels at the nearest off-site sensitive receptors. Therefore, the long-term operational exposure from the proposed project would be less than significant. b) Would the project expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less than Significant Impact
Vibration is sound radiated through the ground. Groundborne noise is the rumbling sound caused by the vibration of building interior surfaces. The ground motion caused by vibration is measured as peak particle velocity (PPV) in inches per second and is referenced as vibration decibels (VdB). Typical outdoor sources of perceptible groundborne vibration are construction equipment and traffic on rough roads.
The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) indicates that vibration levels in critical care areas, such as hospital surgical rooms and laboratories, should not exceed 0.2 inch per second of PPV.97 The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) also uses a PPV of 0.2 inch per second as a vibration damage threshold for fragile buildings and a PPV of 0.12 inch per second for extremely fragile historic buildings. The FTA criteria for infrequent groundborne vibration events (less than 30 events per day) that may cause annoyance are 80 VdB for residences and buildings where people normally sleep, and 83 VdB for institutional land uses with primarily daytime use.98
97 American National Standards Institute (ANSI). “Guide to the Evaluation of Human Exposure to Vibration in Buildings”, ANSI S.329-1983. 98 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA-VA-90-1003-06. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration (May 2006).
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.12-10 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 NOISE
Construction
The project would not include any blasting, drilling, or pile driving. Construction equipment such as loaded trucks, jack hammers, and small bulldozers may temporarily increase groundborne vibration or noise at the project site.
The FTA has published standard vibration levels for construction equipment operations, at a distance of 25 feet.99 The smallest geometric mean distance from construction activity to a residential receptor would be about 70 feet. The calculated vibration levels expressed in VdB and PPV for selected types of construction equipment at distances of 25, 50 and 70 feet are listed in Table 4.12-7.
Table 4.12-7 VIBRATION LEVELS OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Vibration Vibration Vibration PPV PPV PPV Decibels Decibels Decibels Equipment at 25 feet at 50 feet at 70 feet at 25 feet at 50 feet at 70 feet (in/sec) (in/sec) (in/sec)a (VdB) (VdB) (VdB)a Large Bulldozer 0.089 87 0.0315 81 0.022 78 Loaded Truck 0.076 83 0.0269 77 0.019 74 Jackhammer 0.035 79 0.0124 73 0.009 70 Small Bulldozer 0.003 58 0.0011 52 0.001 49 Source: Calculated by UltraSystems from FTA data. a70 feet is representative of the nearest sensitive receiver to the proposed construction.
As shown in Table 4.12-7, the vibration level of construction equipment at the nearest sensitive receiver (70 feet) is at most 0.022 inch per second, which is less than the FTA damage threshold of 0.12 inch per second PPV for fragile historic buildings, and 78 VdB, which is less than the FTA threshold for human annoyance of 80 VdB. Vibration impacts would therefore be less than significant.
Operation
Operation of the proposed project would not involve significant sources of groundborne vibration or groundborne noise. Thus, operation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact.
c) Would the project cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d) Would the project cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
99 Ibid., p. 12-12.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.12-11 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 NOISE
Less than Significant Impact
As shown in Table 4.12-6, operation of the project would generate noise levels at the nearest off- site sensitive receptors that are below the existing ambient noise levels at the nearest off-site sensitive receptors. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people who reside or work in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact
The nearest airport is Long Beach Airport, whose nearest runway is approximately 2.2 miles northeast of the project site. In addition, the project site is outside the boundaries of the Long Beach Airport portion of the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Plan (County of Los Angeles, 2004). Therefore, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels and no impact would occur. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people who reside or work in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact
The nearest private airport to the project site is Goodyear Blimp Base Airport that is located as near as 6.9 miles northwest of the project site. The project site is not in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose students or staff to excessive noise levels. No impact would occur. g) Is the proposed school site located adjacent to or near a major arterial roadway or freeway whose noise generation may adversely affect the education program?
No Impact
The nearest freeway, Interstate I-710, is approximately 1.4 miles west of the project site. Noise generated by freeway traffic would be attenuated so much by distance and by intervening structures that it would not adversely affect operations at the school. The largest roadway in the vicinity of the project site is Pacific Coast Highway, which is as near as 150 feet north of the project site. Pacific Coast Highway is classified as a “Regional Corridor” in the General Plan and currently has an average daily trip rate of 40,500 vehicles per day (Caltrans, 2016). According to California Education Code 17213(9), a major arterial roadway has traffic in excess of 50,000 vehicles per day in rural areas and 100,000 vehicles per day in urban areas. As such, none of the nearby roadways would be classified as a major arterial roadway. Therefore, no impact would occur.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.12-12 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 POPULATION AND HOUSING
4.13 Population and Housing
Less than Potentially Significant Less than Would the project: Significant Impact with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) X or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction X
of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of X
replacement housing elsewhere? a) Would the project induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and business) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
No Impact
The project does not include a housing component or otherwise support an increase in the resident population of the City. The project would utilize existing infrastructure for its operation and no additional extension of roads or other infrastructure is proposed. The proposed project would not directly or indirectly induce population growth in the project area. Therefore, no impact would occur. b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact
The proposed project is located within a high school campus and no housing facilities or residences are located on site. Therefore, project components would not involve the removal or displacement of existing housing. Because no housing would be displaced by the project, there would be no need for the construction of replacement housing. Therefore, no impact would occur. c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact
The project would not result in the loss of residential units or displace any people with housing. Therefore, the construction of replacement housing would not be necessary and no impact would occur.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.13-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 PUBLIC SERVICES
4.14 Public Services
Less than Potentially Significant Less than Would the project: Significant Impact with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Other public facilities? X
f) Does the site promote the joint use of parks, libraries, museums, and other X public services?
a) Fire protection?
No Impact
The Long Beach Fire Department (LBFD) provides fire protection and emergency medical services citywide. The LBFD operates 24 fire stations throughout the City. Fire stations nearest to the project site include Station No. 10 approximately 0.6 miles southeast and Station No. 7 approximately 0.9 miles northwest of the project site.
The LBFD is divided into four bureaus including Operations, Fire Prevention, Support Services and Administration. Each bureau reports to the fire chief and is further broken down into divisions. Each bureau has specific responsibilities that are managed independently.100 The Operations Bureau is responsible for all field operations including Fire Suppression, the Lifeguard Division, personnel, policies and fire/non-fire response activities. The Support Services Bureau is responsible for Fire Communications, Training Division, Emergency Medical Services, and Fleet Management.
The Fire Prevention Bureau's objectives, organization, functions and responsibilities work towards the primary goal of preventing fires before they happen. The Bureau is also responsible for providing safety education in case of fire, investigating and identifying suspicious fires and environmental crimes through proactive enforcement of Fire, Life Safety, and Environmental Code requirements in the City. The Bureau is responsible for Fire Code Enforcement, Plan Check, Fire Investigation, Arson Prosecution, Environmental Investigations, and Records Management. The Bureau assures that newly constructed buildings are designed with correct fire protection and life
100 http://www.longbeach.gov/fire/organization-chart/, Accessed on June 20, 2017.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.14-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 PUBLIC SERVICES
safety systems built into them. Existing structures must satisfy fire code requirements and standards.101
The proposed project would comply with applicable sections of the City of Long Beach Fire, Life Safety and Environmental Code. Construction plans would be subject to approval by the Division of the State Architect102 and the Long Beach Fire Prevention Bureau. With the implementation of required measures for fire safety and prevention, there would be no impact related to fire protection services. b) Police protection?
No Impact
The Long Beach Police Department (LBPD) is the second largest municipal police agency in Los Angeles County, and responsible for providing law enforcement services in the City. LBPD includes over 800 sworn officers and total staff of over 1,200 personnel and, is divided into five bureaus including: Administration, Financial, Investigation, Patrol and Support.103
The City of Long Beach is organized into quadrants. The Patrol Bureau includes one specialized Field Support Division and four geographical divisions: North, South, East and West. The Patrol Bureau focuses on community policing accomplished by community policing teams consisting of sworn employees and civilian support staff. These proactive teams promote personal safety and crime prevention.104
Long Beach Police South Patrol Division is located approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the project site. The proposed project includes replacement and improvement of sports facilities within a high school campus. The project would not adversely affect demand for police protection services as no additional calls for service are anticipated to be generated as a result of project implementation. The proposed project would provide the much needed sports facility improvements including new lighting at the track and sports fields located within the Polytechnic High School campus. The proposed lighting improvements would improve campus security during nighttime sports events, which may help in reducing incidents of crime and resulting demand for police protection services. Therefore, the project would have a positive effect on campus security. The project would not adversely affect existing service capacity of the LBPD and no impact would occur.
c) Schools?
No Impact
The proposed project includes replacement and improvement of sports facilities within a high school campus. As discussed in Section 4.13 of this Initial Study, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly induce population growth in the project area. Therefore, the proposed project would have a positive effect related to the provision of schools and no impact would occur.
101 http://www.longbeach.gov/fire/fire-prevention/, Accessed on June 20, 2017. 102 This division is an affiliate of State of California’s Department of General Services. 103 http://www.longbeach.gov/police/about-the-lbpd/, Accessed June 20, 2017. 104 http://www.longbeach.gov/police/about-the-lbpd/bureaus/patrol-bureau/patrol-bureau/, Accessed June 20, 2017.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.14-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 PUBLIC SERVICES
d) Parks?
No Impact
The City of Long Beach Parks system includes 162 parks with 26 community centers, two historic sites, two major tennis centers, and, one of the busiest municipal golf systems in the country with five courses.105 More than 3,100 acres within the City's 50 square miles are developed for parks and recreation. The project site is located in close proximity to two community parks including Ernest McBride Park and Martin Luther King Jr. Park. Several other mini parks and neighborhood parks are also located near the project site.
Demand for parks typically increases with housing or population growth in an area. The proposed project would not directly or indirectly induce population growth in the project area. Therefore, no impacts on parks are anticipated. e) Other public facilities?
No Impact
The proposed project would not directly or indirectly induce population growth in the project area Therefore, no impacts on other public facilities such as libraries and medical facilities are anticipated. f) Does the site promote the joint use of parks, libraries, museums, and other public services?
No Impact
On January 1, 2008, the District and the City of Long Beach entered into a Joint Use Agreement (refer to Appendix F), which allows the joint use of each jurisdiction’s facilities for the purposes of attainment of general education programs, community recreation services and civic activities for children and adults. Under this agreement, the improved sports facilities at Polytechnic High School may be utilized by the City’s residents; however, such facilities may only be used by an agency if not already in use by the agency that owns the facility. Therefore, the project site does promote joint use of athletic facilities located onsite and no impact would occur.
105 http://www.longbeach.gov/park/business-operations/about/, Accessed June 20, 2017.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.14-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 RECREATION
4.15 Recreation
Less than Potentially Significant Less than No Would the project: Significant Impact with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities X such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities X
which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
No Impact
The increase in use of recreational facilities is generally spurred by population growth in the project area. As discussed in Section 4.13 of this Initial Study, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly induce any population growth in the project area. Therefore, there would be no impact on existing neighborhood or regional parks and facilities.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
The proposed project would include replacement of an existing track and field with a new synthetic track and field, replacement of an existing softball field with a new synthetic softball field, relocation of tennis courts, and construction of a 50-meter athletic pool.106 Construction and operation of these recreational facilities would comply with federal, state, and local requirements. As discussed in Sections 4.1 through 4.18 of this Initial Study, with implementation of mitigation measures N-1 through N-4 no significant adverse physical effects on the environment are expected from construction and operation of the project. With adherence to all applicable regulations and mitigation measures, adverse physical effects on the environment would be less than significant.
106 See Section 2.0, Project Description, of this Initial Study.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.15-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.16 Transportation and Traffic
Less than Potentially Significant Less than No Would the project: Significant Impact with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated e) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit X
and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? f) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand X measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? g) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location, X which results in substantial safety risks? h) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or X incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? i) Result in inadequate emergency X access? j) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or X otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? k) Is the proposed school site within 1,500 feet of a railroad track X easement? l) Is the site easily accessible from arterials and is the minimum peripheral visibility maintained for X driveways per Caltrans' Highway Design Manual?
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.16-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.16.1 Methodology
A focused Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was completed to assess existing traffic conditions surrounding Polytechnic High School, and the effect of development of the proposed project on existing on- and off-site traffic circulation, site access and parking. The following is a summary of the TIA, which is provided in Appendix K.
The TIA included analysis of the following intersections in the project study area:
• Atlantic Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway (signalized); • Atlantic Avenue and Jackrabbit Lane/Project Access (signalized); • Atlantic Avenue and 15th Street (signalized); • Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway(signalized); and • Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue and 17th Street (signalized).
The existing roadway network and intersections surrounding the project site including intersection geometrics and controls are shown in Figure 4.16-1.
4.16.1.1 Level of Service
The level of service (LOS) is a qualitative indicator of an intersection’s congestion and delay.
The Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method was used to determine signalized intersection LOS. Under ICU methodology, the volume of traffic using the intersection is compared to the capacity of the intersection. ICU’s are calculated for peak hours of traffic, and include unique features of the intersection such as turning movement volumes, intersection lane configurations, and traffic signal phasing. ICU’s are generally expressed as a percent, and used to determine the LOS based on the capacity of the intersection.
LOS for signalized intersections range from “A” (excellent conditions) to “F “(extreme congestion), and is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. LOS for signalized intersections are summarized in Table 4.16-1.
Target LOS criteria for study area intersections were determined based on individual “Street Typology Design Criteria” as identified in Table 5 of the City of Long Beach General Plan Mobility Element. The Mobility Element designates “D” to be the maximum allowable peak hour LOS for regional corridors, boulevards and major avenues, and “C” to be the maximum allowable peak hour LOS for minor avenues and neighborhood connectors.
Table 4.16-1 ICU ANALYSIS LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Level of Nominal Traffic Flow Description Service Range of ICU Low volumes; high speeds; speed not restricted by other vehicles; all signal A 0.00 – 0.60 cycles clear with no vehicles waiting through more than one signal cycle. Operating speeds beginning to be affected by other traffic; between one and B ten percent of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles which wait through 0.61 - 0.70 more than one cycle during peak traffic periods.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.16-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Level of Nominal Traffic Flow Description Service Range of ICU Operating speeds and maneuverability closely controlled by other traffic; between 11 and 30 percent of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles C 0.71 - 0.80 which wait through more than one cycle during peak traffic periods; recommended ideal design standard. Tolerable operating speeds; 31 to 70 percent of the signal cycles have one or D more vehicles which wait through more than one cycle during peak traffic 0.81 - 0.90 periods; often used as design standard in urban areas. Capacity; the maximum traffic volume an intersection can accommodate; E restricted speeds; 71 to 100 percent of the signal cycles have one or more 0.91 - 1.00 vehicles which wait through more than one cycle during peak traffic periods. Long queues of traffic; unstable flow; stoppages of long duration; traffic F volumes and traffic speed can drop to zero; traffic volumes will be less than Over 1.00 the volume which occurs at Level of Service E.
4.16.1.2 Existing Traffic Volumes
Existing (Year 2017) traffic volumes in the study area were collected on a school day and include weekday AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes for each of the five study intersections noted above.
4.16.1.3 Projected Future Traffic
For the proposed project, the peak construction traffic is expected to occur in the year 2025 during construction of the new athletic pool. Trip generation rates used to forecast traffic volumes produced during peak construction period were developed using data from the project air quality modeling reports as well as information provided by the District regarding the maximum amount of construction workers (i.e. 20 workers) that are anticipated to work on the project site at a time.
Peak Construction Phase Year 2025 without-Project traffic volumes were determined using the following methodology:
• An approved growth factor was applied to the existing traffic volumes collected in 2017. This growth rate was taken from the 2010 Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program, for regional statistical area 20 – Long Beach (RSA 20). This growth factor is expected to be 1.152 from 2015 to 2020 and 1.160 from 2020 to 2025. Adjusting for a 2017 base year, a growth factor of 1.27 was applied to the existing traffic counts.
• A list of the most current approved/pending projects in the study area was obtained from the City’s Planning Department. Any approved and pending projects on the City’s cumulative projects list were also added to the study area to make up the Peak Construction Phase Year 2025 scenario.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.16-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Figure 4.16-1 STUDY AREA INTERSECTION LOCATIONS, GEOMETRICS AND TRAFFIC CONTROLS
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.16-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.16.2 Discussion of Impacts a) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
Less than Significant Impact
Operation
The proposed project would include modernization and improvement of existing athletic and sports facilities within the Polytechnic High School campus. As discussed in Section 3.0, Project Description, the proposed new athletic pool would replace an existing indoor pool located on campus. Following project implementation, the total number of sports events held at the project site would remain similar to existing conditions. No additional events are anticipated as a result of proposed improvements and addition of new sports lighting. The project would be constructed entirely within the existing Polytechnic High School campus and would not increase the number of students at Polytechnic High School; nor would it add additional uses. Therefore, the project would not generate new (permanent) trips (traffic) in the study area during the operation phase and no impacts would occur.
Construction
As described in Section 3.0, Project Description, project related construction activities are scheduled to commence in December 2017 and end in May 2025, with most of the proposed improvements anticipated to be completed over three years (from 2017 to 2020). During the construction period, the proposed project would generate temporary construction-related truck and automobile traffic. Traffic during the construction phase would include construction workers traveling to and from the project site, trucks hauling construction materials to the site, and transporting material away from the site. As the truck trips would be spread throughout the day and would generally occur during non-peak hours, the level of construction-related traffic would not result in significant impact on the study area street network.
Peak construction-generated traffic is expected to occur during the construction of the proposed athletic pool. It is expected that construction traffic would occur before 7:00 a.m., and end between 2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. The project traffic impact analysis focuses on the weekday AM (7:00 to 9:00 am) and PM (4:00 to 6:00 pm) peak commute traffic periods, as well as, an end-of-work shift (2:00 to 4:00 pm) period. These periods represent the highest cumulative total traffic for the adjacent street system.
Peak construction traffic is forecast to generate 61 trips per weekday during the construction of the athletic pool. Table 4.16-2 shows end-of-work shift peak hour trip generation, which represents the highest volume of vehicles entering and exiting the project site. The projected AM peak hour volume is 4 trips with 4 inbound and 0 outbound. The projected end-of-work shift peak volume is 24 trips with 0 inbound and 24 outbound. The projected PM peak hour volume is 0 trips.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.16-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Table 4.16-2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
AM Peak End-of-Work PM Peak hour Vehicular Trips per hour Shift Peak weekday Land Use Quantity hour In Out In Out In Out Polytechnic 20 0 24 4 0 0 0 61 Construction Workers
LOS analysis for Baseline 2017 and for Peak Construction 2025 without-Project and with-Project traffic volume conditions during the AM peak hour, end-of-work shift peak hour and PM peak hour are provided in Tables 4.16-3, 4.16-4 and 4.16-5.
Table 4.16-3 AM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE AT STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS
AM Peak Hour
Peak Peak Baseline (2017) Construction Baseline (2017) Construction Signalized Intersection without Project (2025) without with Project (2025) with Project Project
ICU Level of ICU Level of ICU Level of ICU Level of Service Service Service Service 1. Atlantic and Pacific Coast 0.672 B 0.826 D 0.672 B 0.826 D 2. Atlantic and Jackrabbit 0.594 A 0.725 C 0.59 6 A 0.727 C
3. Atlantic and 15th Street 0.435 A 0.524 A 0.435 A 0.524 A
4. Martin Luther King Jr. and 0.600 A 0.734 C 0.600 B 0.734 C Pacific Coast 5. Martin Luther King Jr. and 0.394 A 0.473 A 0.394 A 0.473 A 17th Street
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.16-6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Table 4.16-4 END-OF-WORK SHIFT PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE AT STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS
End-of-Work Shift Peak Hour
Peak Peak Baseline (2017) Construction Baseline (2017) Construction Signalized Intersection without Project (2025) without with Project (2025) with Project Project ICU Level of ICU Level of ICU Level of ICU Level of Service Service Service Service 1. Atlantic and Pacific Coast 0.619 B 0.757 C 0.626 B 0.764 C 2. Atlantic and Jackrabbit 0.353 A 0.442 A 0.385 A 0.457 A
3. Atlantic and 15th Street 0.350 A 0.412 A 0.351 A 0.412 A
4. Martin Luther King Jr. and 0.512 A 0.622 A 0.513 A 0.622 A Pacific Coast 5. Martin Luther King Jr. and 0.296 A 0.348 A 0.297 A 0.349 A 17th Street
Table 4.16-5 PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE AT STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS
PM Peak Hour
Peak Peak Baseline (2017) Construction Baseline (2017) Construction Signalized Intersection without Project (2025) without with Project (2025) with Project Project
ICU Level of ICU Level of ICU Level of ICU Level of Service Service Service Service 1. Atlantic and Pacific Coast 0.716 C 0.883 D 0.716 C 0.883 D 2. Atlantic and Jackrabbit 0.392 A 0.470 A 0.392 A 0.470 A th 3. Atlantic and 15 Street 0.416 A 0.499 A 0.416 A 0.499 A 4. Martin Luther King Jr. and 0.604 A 0.740 C 0.604 B 0.740 C Pacific Coast 5. Martin Luther King Jr. and 0.328 A 0.388 A 0.328 A 0.388 A 17th Street
The City of Long Beach has adopted a performance standard of LOS D (peak hour ICU less than or equal to 0.90) for all signalized intersections. Therefore, for the project traffic impact analysis, LOS D was used as the threshold of significance or the maximum acceptable LOS at all study area intersections.
As shown in Tables 4.16-3, 4.16-4 and 4.16-5, under Baseline 2017 (existing) conditions, all study area intersections are operating at LOS C or better during the AM, end-of-work shift, and PM peak hours. According to the TIA, with the addition of the project, the study area intersections are forecast to continue to operate at LOS C or better.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.16-7 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Under Peak Construction Phase Year 2025 conditions, all study area intersections are forecast to operate at LOS D or better during the AM, end-of-work shift, and PM peak hours. According to the TIA, with the addition of the project, the study area intersections are forecast to continue to operate at LOS D or better.
Therefore, under the Baseline 2017 and Peak Construction (2025) without-Project and with-Project conditions, all study area intersections are currently operating and would continue to operate at a desirable LOS (i.e. LOS D or better) considering their individual “Street Typology Design Criteria” as identified in the City’s General Plan Mobility Element. For these reasons, traffic impacts during project construction are anticipated to be less than significant.
Non-motorized Traffic and Mass Transit
The project is not anticipated to generate an increase in non-motorized traffic. Existing streets in the vicinity of the project site have sidewalks along both sides of the street, with the exception of 15th Street which only has sidewalks on its south side. All project activities including construction would be contained within the existing boundary of the Polytechnic High School campus and the project would not interfere with any adjacent sidewalks. Therefore, the project would have no impact on non-motorized traffic circulation.
Long Beach Transit bus lines provide bus transit service in the project area. The nearest bus lines operate on East New York Street and Atlantic Avenue, and the nearest bus stops are located within an approximately 3-minute walk from the project site. Operation of the proposed project would not affect the transit route or bus facilities, and not conflict with any plans or policies relative to these travel modes. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation, and no impact would occur. b) Would the project conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
No Impact
As mentioned in the response in a) above, the proposed project would not generate an increase in traffic in the long term and traffic increase generated by the project during the construction phase would be temporary. Construction related traffic would be spread throughout the day and would generally occur during non-peak hours.
The Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP) requires all freeway segments and arterial intersections to operate at a minimum LOS “E”, or at the current level, if worse than “E”. According to the TIA (refer to Appendix K) prepared for the project, during project construction, study area intersections analyzed in the TIA would continue to operate at an acceptable LOS. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to conflict with LOS standards or travel demand measures established by the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program. No impact would occur.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.16-8 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
c) Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location, which results in substantial safety risks?
No Impact
The nearest commercial airport, Long Beach Airport, is located approximately 2.25 miles northeast of the project site. The project site is located outside the Airport Influence Area for Long Beach Airport established by the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission (see Figure 4.16-2).107 Furthermore, the proposed project would not affect the operation of any airport because height of the proposed structures would not exceed Federal Aviation Administration height limits for air safety established in Federal Air Regulations Part 77 Guidelines.108 For these reasons, the project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns that would result in safety risks and no impact would occur.
d) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
No Impact
The project site is located within an existing school campus. The proposed activities include improvements to existing track and fields, relocation of existing tennis courts and portable structures and construction of an athletic pool on site. The project would not alter or impact roads or sight lines in the project area and all construction activities will be contained within the project site. Therefore, the project would not create any hazardous design features or incompatible uses, and no impact would occur. e) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?
No Impact
The proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Access to the project site would occur through the existing surface parking lot located west of the baseball field. The proposed project would comply with applicable LBFD regulations and the California Building Standards Codes. Prior to the approval of the project site plans, the LBFD would review the proposed site plans, including location of all structures, fences, drive gates, or other features that may affect emergency access. Fire lanes would be provided as required, for adequate emergency access. LBFD’s review process and compliance with applicable regulations and standards would ensure that adequate emergency access would be provided at the project site at all times. Therefore, emergency responders would have adequate access in case of an emergency and no impact would occur.
107 http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/project/aluc_airport-long-beach.pdf. Accessed August 2017. 108 http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/data/pd_alup.pdf. Accessed August 2017.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.16-9 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Figure 4.16-2 AIRPORT INFLUENCE AREA FOR LONG BEACH AIRPORT
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.16-10 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 TRAFFIC f) Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
No Impact
The project site and study area are currently served by Long Beach Transit Routes 61, 71, 72, 171, 172, 173, and 174. The proposed project does not include removal or relocation or expansion of alternative transportation facilities. The proposed athletic field improvements would be limited to the project site. All project activities including construction would be contained within the existing boundary of the Polytechnic High School campus and the project would not interfere with any adjacent sidewalks or bicycle paths. For these reasons, the project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, and have no impact on the performance or safety of such facilities. g) Is the proposed school site within 1,500 feet of a railroad track easement?
No Impact
The nearest railroad track easement, Amtrak, is located approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the project site. As the project site is not located in the vicinity (i.e. within 1,500 feet) of a railroad track easement, there would be no impacts associated with safety hazards as a result of location near railroad tracks. h) Is the site easily accessible from arterials and is the minimum peripheral visibility maintained for driveways per Caltrans’ Highway Design Manual?
No Impact
The proposed site is located near the intersection of Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue and East 15th Street. Direct access to the project site would be provided by Jackrabbit Lane connected to Atlantic Avenue located along the western boundary of the site. According to the City and information provided in the TIA (refer to Appendix K), the existing traffic controls and geometrics for street intersections in the study area are not planned to be changed and/or reconfigured between now and 2025 or as a result of the proposed project. The project includes improvements to existing athletic fields located on Polytechnic High School campus and does not propose changes to existing access driveways and parking aisles within or near the campus. As no changes to existing streets and access driveways are proposed, no impacts related to access and peripheral visibility would occur.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.16-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.17 Tribal Cultural Resources
Less than Potentially Significant Less than No Would the Project: Significant Impact with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of X Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code § 5020.1(k)? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is determined to be a significant resource to a California X Native American tribe pursuant to the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1(c)?
The cultural resources analysis for the Long Beach Polytechnic High School project site (Appendix I) that included a records and literature search at the South Central Coastal Information CHRIS Center, a request to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to conduct a search of their Sacred Land Files for potential traditional cultural properties, as well as to provide a list of local Native American tribes and tribal representatives to contact, and a field pedestrian survey was conducted. Historical background investigation found that the campus and surrounding area has been a fully developed urban landscape since the mid-1930s. There was no finding of historic or prehistoric cultural resources on the project site. a) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code § 5020.1(k)? or b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is determined to be a significant resource to a California Native American tribe pursuant to the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of public resource code § 5024.1(c)?
Less Than Significant Impact
Assembly Bill 52 requires meaningful consultation with California Native American Tribes on potential impacts to tribal cultural resources (TCRs), as defined in Public Resources Code § 21074. Tribal cultural resources are sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either eligible or listed in the
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.17-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
California Register of Historical Resources or local register of historical resources.109 The District contacted the three tribes that requested to be notified of pending LBUSD projects – the San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (Gabrieleno – Kizh Nation, and the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians.
The project site has been previously disturbed (see Appendix I). Accordingly, it is unlikely that any tribal resources exist on the site. Due to the developed nature of the project site, the school, and the surrounding area, the fact that the proposed project would require minimal grading, the absence of nearby recorded cultural resource sites, and the absence of traditional sites recorded in the NAHC’s Sacred Land Files, it is less likely that significant tribal cultural resources would be encountered during construction of the proposed project. However, any tribal cultural resources accidentally discovered during construction would be evaluated and protected in compliance with State CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(f). Therefore, impacts from the project would be less than significant.
LBUSD sent letters to the three tribes on their AB 52 consultation list notifying them of the Long Beach Polytechnic High School project in the week of August 7, 2017. For the proposed project, the District received one request for consultation from a California Native American tribe, the Gabrieleno – Kizh Nation, regarding resources defined by Public Resources Code § 21074, and consultation was conducted on September 13, 2017. The Gabrieleno – Kizh Nation stated that there is oral tradition within their Band and historic maps indicating traditional Native American activity within the area of the project such as seasonal camps, including a traditional trading route between the coast and inland near the area of Pacific Coast Highway and Atlantic Avenue (approximately 1,250 feet from the project). Because of this traditional information, the Gabrieleno – Kizh Nation believes there may be a higher sensitivity for tribal cultural resources in the vicinity of the project than a cultural resources inventory study might indicate. To meet these tribal concerns, the District will require that a Workers Environmental Awareness Program [WEAP] be prepared and cultural sensitivity training be conducted for the construction supervisor and workforce prior to the start of construction activities.
There is no substantial evidence that Tribal Cultural Resources are present on the project site. With the implementation of cultural sensitivity training the proposed project would not be expected to result in an impact related to tribal cultural resources.
109 California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA), 2007. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. Electronic document.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.17-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.18 Utilities and Service Systems
Less than Potentially Significant Less than No Would the project: Significant Impact with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable X Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing X facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the X construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or X are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the X project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted X capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and X regulations related to solid waste?
a) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)?
Less than Significant
The project site is within the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). New development and significant redevelopment projects are required by the RWQCB to incorporate post-construction BMPs to comply with the local Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and/or Water Quality
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.18-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Management Plan (WQMP) to reduce the quantity of rainfall runoff and improve the quality of water that leaves a site. The local SUSMP requires new developments to implement appropriate routine structural and nonstructural BMPs. Examples of routine structural BMPs include filtration, common area runoff minimizing landscape, energy dissipaters, inlet trash racks, and catch basins. Routine nonstructural BMPs include litter control, inspection and maintenance of catch basins, and spill contingency plans. A site-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be prepared before soil disturbance begins, and must address methods for treating discharged water and minimizing water pollution during construction. For these reasons, exceedances of RWQCB wastewater treatment requirements, if any, would be less than significant.
b) Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less than Significant
Long Beach Water Department (LBWD) will provide wastewater collection services for the proposed project. Wastewater from the facility will be transferred to existing sanitary sewer pipelines beneath Lemon Avenue and Ridgewood Street. LBWD delivers over 40 million gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater to Los Angeles County Sanitation District facilities. Currently, a majority of the City’s wastewater is treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP), which provides primary and secondary treatment for approximately 350 million gallons of wastewater per day, and has a total permitted capacity of 400 mgd. A portion of the City’s wastewater is also treated at the Long Beach Water Reclamation Plant, which provides primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment for 25 million gallons of wastewater per day.110, 111 The proposed project does not involve an increase in student capacity or associated increase in water usage. While the new swimming pool would increase the amount of water used at the project site, the replacement of the existing grass turf with synthetic fields will reduce the amount of water used for irrigation. Furthermore, the proposed outdoor swimming pool would replace an existing indoor pool located on campus. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to result in significantly increased water usage or wastewater generation. Because the project site is serviced by large water and wastewater treatment facilities with permitted capacities that exceed existing commitments, implementation of the proposed project would not require the construction of new water or wastewater facilities, and no significant impacts are anticipated.
c) Would the project require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less than Significant
After project construction, the amount of impervious area within the Polytechnic High School campus will be similar to existing conditions, and would not be expected to change the amount of runoff from the project site. The proposed project would include stormwater BMPs for construction and operations that would be adequately designed to accommodate site runoff so that it would not adversely impact downstream storm drain facilities or provide substantial additional sources of
110 http://www.lbwater.org/sewage-treatment/. Accessed June 26, 2017. 111 http://www.lacsd.org/wastewater/wwfacilities/joint_outfall_system_wrp/long_beach.asp/. Accessed June 26, 2017. 6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.18-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
polluted runoff. In addition, California Government Code § 53097 requires school districts to comply with city and county ordinances regulating drainage improvements and requiring review and approval of grading plans as they relate to design and construction of onsite improvements that affect drainage. The District would comply with California Government Code § 53097 in implementing the proposed project. This compliance would ensure that the proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Impacts would be less than significant.
d) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed project does not involve an increase in student capacity or associated increase in water usage. While the new swimming pool would increase the amount of water used at the project site, the replacement of the existing grass turf with synthetic fields will reduce the amount of water usage. Furthermore, the proposed outdoor swimming pool would replace an existing indoor pool located on campus. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to significantly increase water usage.
Currently, LBWD serves a total population of 472,779 with over 900 miles of pipelines112, and would provide potable and non-potable water to the project site through pipelines beneath surrounding streets. Approximately 65 percent of potable water in the City is obtained from local groundwater pumped from wells located within the City.113 The remaining 35 percent of potable water is purchased through the Metropolitan Water District (MWD). According to the LBWD’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, the City’s need for a reliable water supply will be satisfied through 2040.114
LBWD has implemented extensive conservation measures to reduce water usage. The City has adopted the Long Beach Sustainable City Action Plan describes how LBWD will maintain reliable supplies and reduce the impact of supply reductions that may occur due to drought or sudden catastrophic events. The City has also adopted a landscape ordinance that requires new landscapes to include drought-tolerant plants, efficient irrigation systems, and other important measures.115 Long Beach satisfies non-potable water demand through the use of reclaimed water from the Long 116 Beach Water Reclamation Plant for irrigating parks, golf courses and other outdoor landscape.
LBWD is actively working on projects that will ensure reliable long-term water supply within the City. LBWD, in partnership with United States Bureau of Reclamation and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, is conducting research and development for desalting seawater. LBWD is also involved in aggressive recycled water system expansions that will increase citywide recycled water consumption to approximately 9,000 acre-feet annually, meeting 15 percent of the
112 http://www.lbwater.org/sites/default/files/documents/LBWD%20CCR%202015%20Updated.pdf/. Accessed. June 26, 2017. 113 Ibid. 114 http://www.lbwater.org/sites/default/files/documents/LBWD2015UWMP.pdf/. Accessed June 26, 2017. 115 Ibid. 116 http://www.lbwater.org/sources-water. Accessed June 26, 2017 6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.18-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
City's total water demand.117 In addition, Long Beach Conjunctive Use Project would allow LBWD to maximize use of the groundwater beneath the City, further strengthening the City’s water supply reliability.118
Increased implementation of aggressive conservation programs, expansion of reclaimed water use, increased utilization and management of groundwater, and continued water desalination research and development would significantly strengthen long term water supply reliability in Long Beach. Therefore, because future water supplies would be available to serve the proposed project, impacts would be less than significant. e) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less than Significant Impact
As previously described in b) and c), the stormwater runoff from the project site and wastewater generated by the project is not expected to change significantly from existing conditions and would be insignificant compared to the permitted capacity for existing wastewater treatment facilities that provide service to the area. Therefore, the project would be within the existing capacity of the wastewater treatment provider, and no significant impacts are anticipated. f) Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
Less than Significant Impact
The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) provides Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates as a forecasting tool for waste generated by development projects. This rate accounts for all waste materials that are disposed, and does not consider recycling.
Solid waste would be temporarily generated from construction and demolition activities. The proposed project does not involve an increase in student capacity or a change in the use of the project site; therefore, solid waste generation during operation is not expected to change significantly. Information about permitted capacity at landfills serving the City of Long Beach is provided in Table 4.18-1.
117 http://www.lbwater.org/recycled-water. Access December 4, 2015 118 http://www.lbwater.org/long-beach-conjunctive-use-projects Accessed June 26, 2017 6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.18-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Table 4.18-1 LANDFILL CAPACITY FOR THE CITY OF LONG BEACH
Maximum Remaining Maximum Capacity Estimated Landfill Location Capacity Daily Loads (cubic Close Date (cubic yards) (tons) yards) Azusa Land 1211 West Gladstone Reclamation Co. 51,512,201 80,571,760 1/1/2045 8,000 Street Azusa, CA 91702 Landfill (30) Chiquita Canyon 29201 Henry Mayo Drive 8,617,126 63,900,000 11/24/2019 6,000 Sanitary Landfill (58) Valencia, CA 91384 Lancaster Landfill 600 East Avenue ‘F’ 14,514,648 27,700,000 03/01/2044 5,100 and Recycling Center Lancaster, CA 93535 Sunshine Canyon 14747 San Fernando 96,800,000 140,900,000 12/31/2037 12,100 City/County Landfill Road Sylmar, CA 91342 Source: CalRecycle, Facility/Site Summary Detail, http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory. Accessed: June 26, 2017.
As shown in Table 4.18-1, given the available landfill capacity, adequate capacity exists to dispose of project-generated solid waste. Therefore, impact on permitted landfill capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste is less than significant. g) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact
The project would comply with AB 939 (Zero Waste program) and County of Los Angeles Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP) requirements for waste reduction. For these reasons, no impacts to federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste are anticipated.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.18-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017
MANDATORY FINDINGS
4.19 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Less than Potentially Significant Less than No Would the project: Significant Impact with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) The potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal X community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in X connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human X beings, either directly or indirectly?
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
Section 4.4 of this Initial Study (IS) addressed impacts on Biological Resources. The project site is located in an urbanized area that already has buildings, structures, sidewalks, and a paved surface parking lot that would not support sensitive habitats or special-status plant or wildlife species.
The project site supports ornamental vegetation and structures that could potentially provide cover and nesting habitat for bird species that have adapted to urban areas. Construction on the project site would begin with demolition activities and existing ornamental vegetation would be removed prior to the start of the breeding bird nesting season. Therefore, the potential for the site to provide cover and nesting habitat for bird species is considered low and temporary project impacts on migratory birds and nests during the construction phase are anticipated to be less than significant.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.19-6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 MANDATORY FINDINGS
Section 4.5 of this IS addressed potential impacts on Cultural Resources. The proposed project will be located on a site that has been graded and has been in use since the mid-1930s. No historical or archaeological resources were identified within the proposed project site during previous investigations; however, unknown or unrecorded resources may potentially be revealed during precise grading activities.
In the unlikely event that cultural resources are discovered during precise grading activities, adherence to applicable state regulations119 would reduce the potential for eliminating important examples of major periods in California history or prehistory and impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
The proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan goals, objectives and policies, and located within a consistent land use designation. Furthermore, the project would be consistent with regional plans and programs that address environmental factors such as air quality, water quality, and other applicable regulations that have been adopted by public agencies with jurisdiction over the project for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects.
Section 4.12 of this ISMND addressed potential impacts related to Noise. With the incorporation of mitigation measures N-1, N-2, N-3, N-4 (Noise Controls during Construction) project impacts associated with excessive noise levels during project construction would be reduced to less than significant levels.
The project would generate new short-term construction jobs in the project area. Due to relatively small size of this project, and it extended duration, and location within an existing urban area, the project is not expected to induce substantial growth in the region. The project does not include a housing component or otherwise support an increase in the resident population of the City and would utilize existing infrastructure for its operation. Therefore, indirect population growth resulting solely from the project is expected to be less than significant.
Because the project would not increase environmental impacts after mitigation measures are incorporated, the incremental contribution to cumulative impacts is anticipated to be less than significant. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant Impact
As discussed in Sections 4.1 through 4.18 of this Initial Study, no environmental effects were identified as having any significant impacts after mitigation measures were incorporated. No
119 See Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, in this Initial Study.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.19-7 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 MANDATORY FINDINGS environmental factors or effects were found to cause a substantial adverse effect on human beings, either directly or indirectly. For these reasons, less than significant impacts are anticipated.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 4.19-8 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 REFERENCES
5.0 REFERENCES
AEP, 2016. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines: Association of Environmental Professionals, Palm Desert, CA.
ANSI, 1983. Guide to the Evaluation of Human Exposure to Vibration in Buildings: American National Standards Institute, Washington D.C.
ARB, 2015. State Area Designations: Air Resources Board, El Monte, CA. https://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. Accessed July 21, 2017.
ASE, 2017 Report of Geotechnical Investigation Proposed New Play Field Upgrades at Long Beach Polytechnic High School Long Beach Unified School District 1600 Atlantic Avenue City of Long Beach, California.
CalTrans, 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TeNS_Sept_2013B.pdf/. Accessed August 2017.
CalTrans, 2016. 2015 Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic on the California State Highway System, http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/census/docs/2015_aadt_truck.pdf/. Accessed August 2017.
CARB, 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building the Framework. California Air Resources Board. May 2014.
CDFW, 2010. Habitat Connectivity Data: California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, CA. April 18. ftp://ftp.dfg.ca.gov/BDB/GIS/BIOS/Habitat_Connectivity. Accessed on July 24, 2017.
CDFW, 2017. California National Diversity Database: California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, CA. https://map.dfg.ca.gov/rarefind/view/RareFind.aspx. Accessed on July 18, 2017.
CEC, 2008. 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. California Energy Commission. December 2008.
CGS, 2009. Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning: California Geological Survey, Sacramento, CA. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geologic_hazards/Tsunami/Inundation_Maps/LosAn geles/Documents/Tsunami_Inundation_LongBeach_Quad_LosAngeles.pdf Accessed on June 26, 2017.
City of Long Beach, 2014. Emergency Preparedness Plans: Long Beach Emergency Communications and Operation Center, Long Beach, CA. http://www.longbeach.gov/DisasterPreparedness/Help-Preparing/Emergency- Preparedness-Plans/. Accessed June 26, 2017.
City of Long Beach, 2017. Fire Department Organizational Chart: Long Beach Fire Department, Long Beach, CA. January. http://www.longbeach.gov/fire/organization-chart. Accessed June 20, 2017.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 5-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 REFERENCES
CNPS, 2017. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California: California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. http://cnps.site.aplus.net/cgi-bin/inv/inventory.cgi/BrowseAZ?name=quad. Accessed July 18, 2017.
CNRA, 2007. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act: California Natural Resources Agency, Sacramento, CA.
County of Los Angeles, 2003. Long Beach Airport Influence Area: Department of Regional Planning, Los Angeles, CA. http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/project/aluc_airport-long- beach.pdf. Accessed June 26, 2017.
DHS, 2011. Definitions of FEMA Flood Zone Designations: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C. http://www.vbgov.com/government/departments/communications-info- tech/maps/Documents/FEMA_FIRM_Maps/Definitions%20of%20FEMA%20Flood%20Zon e%20Designations.pdf. Accessed June 26, 2017.
DOGGR, 2017. Oil, Gas & Geothermal – About Us: Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal, Bakersfield, CA. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dog/Pages/aboutUs.aspx. Accessed July 2017.
DOT, 2010. National Pipeline Mapping System: California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA. https://www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov/. Accessed July 13, 2017.
DOT, 2011. California Scenic Highway Mapping System: California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways. August 2, 2017.
DTSC, 2006. Interim Guidance Evaluation of School Sites with Potential Soil Contamination as a Result of Lead from Lead-Based Paint, Organochlorine Pesticides from Termiticides, and Polychlorinated Biphenyls from Electrical Transformers: Department of Toxic Substances Control, Glendale, CA.
DTSC, 2007. EnviroStor: Department of Toxic Substances Control, Glendale, CA. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/. Accessed July 2017.
EPA, 1986. Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. https://www.epa.gov/epcra. Accessed July 13, 2017.
EPA, 2017. Green Book: Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. https://www.epa.gov/green-book. Accessed July 13, 2017.
EPRI, 2000. Light Trespass Research. https://www.epri.com/#/pages/product/TR-114914/. Accessed August 2017.
FTA, 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA-VA-90-1003-06: Federal Transportation Administration, Washington D.C.
ILE, 2003. Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Light Pollution. https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Planning%20and%20building/SPG%20Ligh tpollution%202002.pdf. Accessed August 2017.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 5-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 REFERENCES
LBDS, 2017. General Plan: Long Beach Development Services, Long Beach, CA. http://www.lbds.info/planning/advance_planning/general_plan.asp. Accessed July 20, 2017.
LBUSD, 2016. Facility Master Plan Update: Long Beach Unified School District, Long Beach, CA. http://lbschoolbonds.net/pdfs/LBUSD-Facilty-Master-Plan-Update-2016.pdf.
Long Beach Polytechnic High School, 2008. Poly Fact Sheet: Long Beach Polytechnic High School, Long Beach, CA. Accessed July 7, 2017.
OSFM, 2013. Pipeline Safety: Office of the State Fire Marshal, Lakewood, CA. http://osfm.fire.ca.gov/pipeline/pipeline. Accessed July 13, 2017.
PCR, 2017. Cultural Resources Assessment for Long Beach Unified School District: PCR Services Corporation, Irvine, CA.
SCAQMD, 2008. Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules, and Plans: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA.
Suman Ghosh, 2014. Supplemental Site Investigation Report: Leighton Consulting, Inc., Irvine, CA. October 24, 2014.
SWRCB, 2013. General Construction Storm Water Permit: California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/constpermits.shtml. Accessed June 26, 2017.
SWRCB, 2015. GeoTracker: California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA. http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. Accessed July 2017.
TSA, 2017. Surface Transportation: Transportation Security Administration, Washington, D.C. https://www.tsa.gov/for-industry/surface-transportation. Accessed July 13, 2017.
USDA, 2017. NRCS Web Soil Survey: United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed July 18, 2017.
USFWS, 2017. Critical Habitat Portal: United States Fish & Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. http://ecos.fws.gov/crithab. Accessed on July 18, 2017.
USFWS, 2017. Information for Planning and Consultation: United States Fish & Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac. Accessed on July 18, 2017.
USFWS, 2017. National Wetlands Inventory: United States Fish & Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/mapper.html. Accessed on July 18, 2017.
USGS, 2017. National Hydrography Dataset: United States Geological Survey, Reston, VA. http://nhd.usgs.gov/. Accessed on July 18, 2017.
WRI, 2013. Climate Analysis Indicators Tool International Data Set. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C. http://www.wri.org/tools/cait/. Accessed April 2017.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 5-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
6.1 Lead Agency
Long Beach Unified School District Facilities, Development and Planning 2425 Webster Avenue, Long Beach, CA 90810
Contact: Elston F. Soares Facilities Consultant
6.2 UltraSystems Environmental, Inc.
Environmental Planning Team
Betsy Lindsay, MURP Associate Principal Hina Gupta, MURP, LEED-AP Deputy Project Manager
Technical Team
Charles Wechsler, MS, JD, Director of Operations Michael Rogozen, D. Env, Senior Principal Engineer Stephen O’Neil, MA, RPA, Cultural Resources Manager Joe O’Bannon, BS, Scientist/Engineer Greg Tonkovich, MS, Scientist/Engineer Paula Fell, MS, Senior Planner Veronica Holliday, BS, Senior Planner Mina Rouhi, MURP, GIS Analyst Sloane Seferyn, BS, Staff Biologist I Megan Black, BA, Archaeological Technician Tanner Wolverton, BS, Planning Intern Shelah Spiegel, AA, Word Processing/Technical Editing
Subcontractors
Transpo Group (Traffic and Parking) Dennis Pascua, BS, Transportation Planning Manager Rudy Garcia, EIT, Senior Transportation Engineer
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 6-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
7.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared in conformance with § 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and § 15097 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, which requires all state and local agencies to establish monitoring or reporting programs whenever approval of a project relies upon a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The MMRP ensures implementation of the measures being imposed to mitigate or avoid the significant adverse environmental impacts identified through the use of monitoring and reporting. Monitoring is generally an ongoing or periodic process of project oversight. Reporting generally consists of a written compliance review that is presented to the decision-making body or authorized staff person.
It is the intent of the MMRP to (1) provide a framework for document implementation of the required mitigation, (2) identify monitoring/reporting responsibility, (3) provide a record of the monitoring/reporting, and (4) ensure compliance with those mitigation measures that are within the responsibility of the Long Beach Unified School District (District) to implement.
As discussed in the Environmental Analysis of the Initial Study/MND, impact areas requiring mitigation are:
• Noise
The following table lists impacts, mitigation measures adopted by the District in connection with approval of the proposed project, level of significance after mitigation, responsible and monitoring parties, and the project phase in which the measures are to be implemented.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 7-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 MANDATORY FINDINGS
Table 7.0-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Monitoring Responsible/ Action or Impact Mitigation Measure Monitoring Party Implementation Stage
NOISE Noise Controls during Construction Threshold 4.12(a): As noted above, the Long N-1 If residents complain of excessive noise during construction, Beach Municipal Code limits then the District will conduct noise monitoring in the construction activities to the residential area of concern during the suspected noise- hours of 7:00 a.m. and to producing construction activities. If the monitored noise 7:00 p.m. Monday through levels exceed regulatory noise restrictions or standards, then Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to the District will mitigate noise levels using temporary noise 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. This shields, noise barriers or other mitigation measures to would preclude construction comply with those restrictions or standards. noise exposures during the Construction evening and nighttime hours, The construction contractor will ensure that all construction N-2 Contractor & Construction when people are most equipment, fixed or mobile, is properly operating (tuned-up) Long Beach Unified Phase sensitive to noise. The worst- and that mufflers are working adequately. School District case noise levels shown in Table 4.12-5 would be limited N-3 Construction activities will not occur between the hours of to short periods of time during 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Mondays through Thursdays; the limited construction period between the hours of 7:00 p.m. on Fridays and 9:00 a.m. for the proposed project. Saturdays; after 6 p.m. on Saturdays, and anytime on. No Nevertheless, short-term permit for construction activity during these prohibited hours absolute exposures and will be sought. exposure increases are potentially significant and N-4 Construction equipment will not be allowed to idle for more need to be mitigated. than five minutes when not in use.
6041/LBUSD Polytechnic HS Athletic Field Improvements Page 7-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2017 BOARD OF EDUCATION LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ______
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 120617-B Enclosures: ___Yes_____ Approving the Proposed Project and Adopting the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for Webster Elementary School Interim Housing Project ______
CATEGORY: New Business Item Reason for Board Consideration: ____Action__
Business Services Date: _December 6, 2017 ______
BACKGROUND: The Webster Elementary School Interim Housing Project (“Project”), located at Webster Elementary School, is interim housing for the Measure E HVAC projects. The Project includes the installation of 19 portable buildings, a new drop-off and pick-up area in the northern parking lot, and reconfiguration of Netherly Avenue along the school frontage to accommodate a bus drop-off area, angled street parking and one-way southbound traffic for improved traffic flow. The portables will be removed from the site after a four (4) to six (6) year period.
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study (IS) was conducted to assess significant environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the Interim Housing. Based on the study’s findings a Negative Declaration (ND), which states that the project would present no impact, is recommended.
The IS/ND was sent to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to public agencies for review and was available for public review at 8 locations including: District Facilities Development & Planning Branch, Webster Elementary School, Garfield Elementary School, Birney Elementary School, Muir Elementary School, Bret Harte Neighborhood Library, Signal Hill Public Library and Burnett Neighborhood Library.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend approval of Resolution No.120617-B
A RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNING BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT APPROVING THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND ADOPTING THE INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INTERIM HOUSING PROJECT
Approved: Approved and Recommended:
Yumi Takahashi Christopher J. Steinhauser Chief Business & Financial Officer Superintendent of Schools
RESOLUTION NO. 120617-B
A RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNING BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT APPROVING THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND ADOPTING THE INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INTERIM HOUSING PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Long Beach Unified School District (“District”) owns the real property located at 1755 W. 32nd Way in Long Beach, California and operates an elementary school known as the Webster Elementary School; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project commonly referred to as the Webster Elementary School Interim Housing (“Project”) has been designed with 19 portable buildings, a new drop-off and pick-up area in the northern parking lot, and reconfiguration of Netherly Avenue along the school frontage to accommodate a bus drop-off area, angled street parking and one-way southbound traffic for improved traffic flow; and
WHEREAS, prior to commencement of the Project, the District must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
WHEREAS, the District, acting as the Lead Agency as defined in the Public Resources Code (PRC) §21067, retained PlaceWorks to prepare an Initial Study for the Project to ascertain whether the Project may have a significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, the Initial Study disclosed there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, on the basis of the Initial Study, District staff determined that a Negative Declaration should be prepared for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Negative Declaration was prepared pursuant to CEQA Statute and Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the District has made the Draft IS-ND available for review and comment by the general public and public agencies; and
WHEREAS, the 30-day public review period of the Draft IS-ND commenced on October 4, 2017, and ended on November 3, 2017; and
WHEREAS, the District published a Notice of Intent to Adopt an Initial Study and Negative Declaration (IS-ND) in the local newspaper, posted a copy of the notice and IS-ND document at Los Angeles County Clerk-Registrar Recorders Office, District Facilities Development & Planning Branch, Webster Elementary School, Garfield Elementary School, Birney Elementary School, Muir Elementary School, Bret Harte Neighborhood Library, Signal Hill Public Library and Burnett Neighborhood Library; and
WHEREAS, the District received a comment letter from the Department of Toxic Substances Control and Department of Transportation regarding the IS-ND; and
1
WHEREAS, the Final IS-ND has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines and to the State of California Public Resources Code.
WHEREAS, the District has reviewed and considered the Final IS-ND for the Project, and has considered the written comments on the Draft IS.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Long Beach Unified School District Governing Board makes the determinations and findings and takes the actions as referenced below pursuant to all applicable Education Codes, State Codes, Public Resources Codes and CEQA Guidelines:
• The foregoing recitals are true and correct.
• Each and all of the findings and determinations contained herein are based upon competent and substantial evidence, either oral, written, or both, contained in the entire administrative record relating to the Project;
• That the Board reviewed and considered the information contained in the IS-ND including, without limitation, the Draft Initial Study and any comments made at the public hearing or contained in the administrative record for the Project prior to approving the Project.
. The Board hereby certifies the following with respect to the IS-ND:
• That the Final IS-ND prepared for the Project contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project; and
. That the Final IS-ND has been completed in compliance with CEQA Statute and Guidelines is hereby certified as adequate and complete; and
• That the Final IS-ND was presented to the Long Beach Unified School District Governing Board and that Board reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final IS-ND prior to approving the project; and that the Final IS-ND reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the District; and
FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Long Beach Unified School District Governing Board hereby certifies the Final IS-ND, attached as Exhibit A; and
FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Long Beach Unified School District Governing Board hereby approves the Project; and
FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, the Long Beach Unified School District Facilities Development and Planning staff is hereby directed to: (i) prepare for filing with the appropriate governmental agency(ies) a written notice memorializing the Board’s determination of the IS- ND certification as to the Project and approval of the Project (“Notice of Determination” or “NOD”); and
FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Superintendent of the Long Beach Unified School District or his representative is authorized to initiate such steps as appropriate and necessary to: (i) prepare final construction plans, specifications and estimates; (ii) implement the mitigation measures identified, (iii) obtain necessary permits and approvals for the construction of the Project, (iv) take such other steps as may be necessary to construct the Project; and (v) bring back to this Governing Board any appropriate recommendations to further implement the foregoing.
2
FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED that the location and custodian of records with respect to all of the relevant documents and any other material which constitute the administrative record for the IS-ND are as follows: Executive Director, Facilities Development and Planning Branch, Long Beach Unified School District, 2425 Webster Avenue, Long Beach, CA 90810.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, we have hereunto set our hand on this 6th day of December 2017.
THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
BY ______President
BY ______Vice President
BY ______Member
BY ______Member
BY ______Member
3
EXHIBIT A
Final Initial Study/ Negative Declaration
4
October 2017 | Negative Declaration
INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Long Beach Unified School District
Prepared for: Long Beach Unified School District Contact: Elston F. Soares, Facilities Consultant Facilities Development and Planning Branch 2425 Webster Avenue Long Beach, California 90810 562.997.7550
Prepared by: PlaceWorks Contact: Alice Houseworth, AICP, LEED AP, Senior Associate 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100 Santa Ana, California 92707 714.966.9220 [email protected] www.placeworks.com
BUSINESS DEPARTMENT – Facilities Development & Planning Office of the Executive Director 2425 Webster Ave., Long Beach, CA 90810 (562) 997-7550 Fax (562) 595-8644
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code (PRC) Sections 2100 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations (CCR) Sections 15000 et seq.), the Long Beach Unified School District has completed this Negative Declaration (ND) for the project described below based on the assessment presented in the attached Initial Study.
LEAD AGENCY & PROJECT PROPONENT: Long Beach Unified School District
PROJECT TITLE: Interim Housing at Daniel Webster Elementary School
PROJECT LOCATION: The proposed project is on the Daniel Webster Elementary School campus and along Netherly Avenue. The approximately 12.8-acre school is at 1755 W. 32nd Way, in the west-central portion of the City of Long Beach in Los Angeles County, California. Regional access to the school is from Interstate 405 to Santa Fe Avenue south or from I-710 to Willow Street west and Santa Fe Avenue north
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Long Beach Unified School District is proposing to install and use interim housing at Webster Elementary School. Interim housing at Webster ES is required to house 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade students during modernization of the following four schools over the next four years: Garfield ES, Webster ES, Muir K-8, and Birney ES. Additionally, Netherly Avenue along the school frontage, which is owned and maintained by the District, would be converted from two-way to one-way southbound traffic; existing street parking on much of the east side of the street would be replaced by diagonal parking spaces. A new loop drop-off and pick-up driveway would be designated through the north parking lot.
Garfield Elementary School Webster Elementary School 2240 Baltic Avenue, Long Beach, CA 90810 1755 W. 32nd Way, Long Beach, CA 90810 (562) 424-8167 (310) 348-9050
Birney Elementary School Muir Elementary School 710 W Spring Street, Long Beach, CA 90806 3038 Delta Avenue, Long Beach, CA 90810 (562) 427-8512 (562) 426-5571
Campus modernizations at each school would include construction such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system installation and boiler system decommissioning, electrical upgrades, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) facility improvements, ceiling repair, and painting.
None of the modernizations would increase capacity at any school. Permanent buildings would not be demolished or constructed. With the exception of Webster ES, all work planned at the three other schools is considered minor and would not have any direct or indirect effect on the existing environment or surrounding neighborhoods. Starting in December 2017, Garfield students would be the first to move into the interim housing while modernization activities are underway. Once the Garfield ES modernization is complete, Garfield students would move back to their permanent facilities. The three other schools would
continue the process in succession. Students from Muir Elementary School, about 0.4 mile southeast of Webster ES, would walk to Webster, and students from Garfield and Birney schools would be bused by the District or driven by their parents, to Webster ES for school day instruction. In succession over three years, Grades 3, 4, and 5 at each of the three schools would be moved off-campus and into the interim housing while the modernization work is being done. To ensure educational consistency throughout the school year, students and teachers would stay together at the interim housing. When construction is complete, the classes for these grades would resume at each school. Students in kindergarten, 1st, and 2nd grades would continue to attend classes at each school. Because modernization work would be conducted in almost all campus buildings, the kindergarten, 1st, and 2nd grade students would use the empty classrooms and portables at each home school while their classrooms are upgraded. The kitchen, cafeteria, and other shared facilities would be upgraded during the summer when students are not in school.
EXISTING CONDITIONS: The proposed interim housing and parking lot expansion site is on the west edge of Daniel Webster Elementary School campus. The approximately 12.8-acre school is at 1755 W. 32nd Way, in the west-central portion of the City of Long Beach in Los Angeles County, California.
DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY: The ND and supporting Initial Study for the Interim Housing at Daniel Webster Elementary School project are available for review at the following locations:
• Long Beach Unified School District, Facilities Development and Planning Branch, 2425 Webster Avenue, Long Beach • Garfield ES, Webster ES, Muir ES, Birney ES (addresses above) • Local Libraries: Signal Hill Public Library: 1780 E Hill St., Signal Hill, Ca 90755 Dana Branch Library: 3680 Atlantic Ave, Long Beach, CA 90807 Burnett Neighborhood Library: 560 E Hill St, Long Beach, CA 90806 District Facilities Department website: www.lbschoolbonds.net
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS: The attached Initial Study was prepared to identify the potential effects on the environment from the installation and operation of the interim housing at Webster ES and to evaluate the significance of those effects. Based on the environmental analysis, the proposed project would have no impacts or less-than-significant environmental impacts related to the following issues:
• Aesthetics • Agriculture and Forestry Resources • Air Quality • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Geology and Soils • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use and Planning • Mineral Resources • Noise • Population and Housing • Public Services • Recreation • Tribal Cultural Resources • Transportation and Traffic • Utilities and Service Systems
Findings. It is hereby determined that, based on the information contained in the attached Initial Study, the project would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. October 2017 | Initial Study
INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Long Beach Unified School District
INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Table of Contents
Section Page
1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 OVERVIEW ...... 1 1.2 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ...... 1 1.3 NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND SUPPORTING INITIAL STUDY ...... 2 1.4 IMPACT TERMINOLOGY ...... 2 1.5 ORGANIZATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY ...... 2 2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ...... 5 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION ...... 5 2.2 SURROUNDING LAND USE ...... 5 2.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS ...... 5 2.4 GENERAL PLAN AND EXISTING ZONING ...... 6 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 23 3.1 PROPOSED PROJECT ...... 23 3.1.1 Facilities ...... 24 3.1.2 Parking ...... 24 3.1.3 Circulation ...... 24 3.1.4 Operation ...... 26 3.1.5 Construction ...... 26 3.2 LEAD AGENCY ...... 27 3.3 ANTICIPATED AGENCY ACTIONS...... 27 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ...... 33 4.1 BACKGROUND ...... 33 4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ...... 35 4.3 DETERMINATION ...... 35 4.4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ...... 36 5. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ...... 45 5.1 AESTHETICS ...... 45 5.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ...... 46 5.3 AIR QUALITY ...... 48 5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ...... 54 5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ...... 56 5.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ...... 57 5.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ...... 60 5.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ...... 63 5.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ...... 66 5.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING ...... 69 5.11 MINERAL RESOURCES ...... 69 5.12 NOISE ...... 70 5.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING ...... 79 5.14 PUBLIC SERVICES ...... 80 5.15 RECREATION ...... 81 5.16 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ...... 81 5.17 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ...... 92 5.18 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ...... 93
October 2017 Page i INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Table of Contents
5.19 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ...... 95 6. LIST OF PREPARERS ...... 97 LEAD AGENCY ...... 97 CEQA CONSULTANT ...... 97
APPENDICES
(Provided on the compact disc attached to the back cover)
A. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Background and Modeling Data
B. Noise and Vibration Background and Modeling Data
C. Traffic Study Calculation Worksheets
Page ii PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Table of Contents
List of Figures
Figure Page
Figure 1 Regional Location ...... 7 Figure 2 Local Vicinity ...... 9 Figure 3 Existing Conditions ...... 11 Figure 4 Photo Location Key ...... 13 Figure 4a Site Photographs ...... 15 Figure 4b Site Photographs ...... 17 Figure 4c Site Photographs ...... 19 Figure 5 Existing Parking Restrictions ...... 21 Figure 6 School Locations ...... 29 Figure 7 Conceptual Site Plan ...... 31
List of Tables
Table Page
Table 1 Modernization Schedule ...... 26 Table 2 Anticipated Agency Actions ...... 28 Table 3 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions ...... 50 Table 4 Maximum Daily Operation Emissions ...... 51 Table 5 Localized Construction Emissions ...... 52 Table 6 Project-Related GHG Emissions ...... 62 Table 7 Exterior Noise Limits ...... 71 Table 8 Interior Noise Limits ...... 72 Table 9 Background Noise Correction ...... 73 Table 10 Operational Noise Increases ...... 74 Table 11 Construction-Related Vibration ...... 76 Table 12 Project-Related Construction Noise Levels ...... 78 Table 13 Intersection Level of Service Descriptions ...... 82 Table 14 Existing Traffic Conditions ...... 85 Table 15 Existing Traffic with Street Improvements ...... 86 Table 16 Vehicular Trips from Interim Student Housing ...... 87 Table 17 AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...... 88 Table 18 Traffic Conditions Without and With Interim Housing ...... 89
October 2017 Page iii INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Table of Contents
This page intentionally left blank.
Page iv PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Abbreviations and Acronyms
AAQS ambient air quality standards AB Assembly Bill ADA Americans with Disabilities Act AQMP air quality management plan AST aboveground storage tank CalRecycle California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery Caltrans California Department of Transportation CARB California Air Resources Board CBC California Building Code CCR California Code of Regulations CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CMP congestion management program CNEL community noise equivalent level CO carbon monoxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent dB decibel dBA A-weighted decibel DPM diesel particulate matter EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FTA Federal Transit Administration GHG greenhouse gases HVAC heating, ventilating, and air conditioning system IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change LBUSD Long Beach Unified School District LOS level of service LST localized significance thresholds MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act Metro Los Angeles County Metropolitan Authority MT metric ton NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NOX nitrogen oxides
October 2017 Page v INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Abbreviations and Acronyms
O3 ozone OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment PM particulate matter PPV peak particle velocity PRC Public Resources Code RMS root mean square RTP/SCS regional transportation plan / sustainable communities strategy SB Senate Bill SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SEADIP Southeast Area Development and Improvement Plan SoCAB South Coast Air Basin
SOX sulfur oxides V/C volume-to-capacity ratio VdB velocity decibels VOC volatile organic compound
Page vi PlaceWorks
1. Introduction
1.1 OVERVIEW Long Beach Unified School District (LBUSD or District) is proposing to use the Daniel Webster Elementary School campus as interim housing as it modernizes four elementary schools. The proposed project is required to undergo an environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. This initial study provides an evaluation of the potential environmental consequences associated with this proposed project.
1.2 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT The environmental compliance process is governed by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)1 and the State CEQA Guidelines.2 CEQA was enacted in 1970 by the California Legislature to disclose to decision makers and the public the significant environmental effects of projects and to identify ways to avoid or reduce the environmental effects through feasible alternatives or mitigation measures. Compliance with CEQA applies to California government agencies at all levels: local, regional, and state agencies, boards, commissions, and special districts (such as school districts and water districts).
The Long Beach Unified School District (LBUSD or District) is the lead agency for this proposed project, and is therefore required to conduct an environmental review to analyze the potential environmental effects associated with the proposed project.
California Public Resources Code Section 21080(a) states that analysis of a project’s environmental impact is required for any “discretionary projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies…” In this case, LBUSD has determined that an initial study is required to determine whether there is substantial evidence that construction and operation of the proposed project would result in environmental impacts. An initial study is a preliminary environmental analysis to determine whether an environmental impact report (EIR), a mitigated negative declaration (MND), or a negative declaration (ND) is required for a project.3
When an initial study identifies the potential for significant environmental impacts, the lead agency must prepare an EIR;4 however, if all impacts are found to be less than significant or can be mitigated to a less than significant level, the lead agency can prepare a ND or a MND that incorporates mitigation measures into the project.5
1 California Public Resources Code (PRC) Sections 21000 et seq. 2 California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq. 3 14 CCR Section 15063. 4 14 CCR Section 15064. 5 14 CCR Section 15070.
October 2017 Page 1 INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 1. Introduction
1.3 NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND SUPPORTING INITIAL STUDY This initial study was prepared to determine if the proposed project would have a significant impact on the environment. The purpose of the initial study is to 1) provide the lead agency with information to use as the basis for deciding the proper type of CEQA document to prepare; 2) enable the lead agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a negative declaration; 3) assist in the preparation of an EIR, if one is required; 4) facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project; (5) provide documentation of the factual basis for the findings in an MND or ND; (6) eliminate unnecessary EIRs; and (7) determine if the project is covered under a previously prepared EIR.6
Based on the findings in this initial study, the District has determined that an ND is the appropriate level of environmental documentation for the proposed Interim Housing project.
1.4 IMPACT TERMINOLOGY The following terminology is used to describe the level of significance of impacts.
. A finding of no impact is appropriate if the analysis concludes that the project would not affect the particular topic area in any way.
. An impact is considered less than significant if the analysis concludes that it would cause no substantial adverse change to the environment and requires no mitigation.
. An impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated if the analysis concludes that it would cause no substantial adverse change to the environment with the inclusion of environmental commitments or other enforceable mitigation measures.
. An impact is considered potentially significant if the analysis concludes that it could have a substantial adverse effect on the environment. If any impact is identified as potentially significant, an EIR would need to be prepared.
1.5 ORGANIZATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY The content and format of this report are designed to meet the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The conclusions in this initial study are that the proposed project would have no significant impacts with the incorporation of mitigation. This report contains the following sections:
. Chapter 1, Introduction, identifies the purpose and scope of the ND and supporting Initial Study and the terminology used.
6 14 CCR Section 15063.
Page 2 PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 1. Introduction
. Chapter 2, Environmental Setting, describes the existing conditions, surrounding land uses, general plan designations, and existing zoning at the school and surrounding area.
. Chapter 3, Project Description, identifies the location, background, and describes the proposed project in detail.
. Chapter 4, Environmental Checklist, has the CEQA checklist and the significance finding for each resource topic.
. Chapter 5, Environmental Analysis, provides an evaluation of the impact categories and a response to questions contained in the CEQA checklist and identifies mitigation measures, if applicable. Bibliographical references and individuals cited for information sources and technical data are footnoted throughout this CEQA Initial Study; therefore a stand-alone bibliography section is not required.
. Chapter 6, List of Preparers, identifies the individuals who prepared the ND and supporting Initial Study and technical studies and their areas of technical specialty.
. Appendices have data supporting the analysis or contents of this CEQA Initial Study. A. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Background and Modeling Data B. Noise Background and Modeling Data C. Traffic Study Calculation Worksheets
October 2017 Page 3 INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 1. Introduction
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 4 PlaceWorks
2. Environmental Setting
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION The proposed interim housing site is on the western edge of Daniel Webster Elementary School campus. The project also includes the reconfiguration of circulation and parking on Netherly Avenue. The approximately 12.8-acre school is at 1755 W. 32nd Way in the west-central portion of the City of Long Beach in Los Angeles County, California. Regional access to the school is from Interstate 405 to Santa Fe Avenue south or from I-710 to Willow Street west and Santa Fe Avenue north (see Figure 1, Regional Location, and Figure 2, Local Vicinity).
2.2 SURROUNDING LAND USE The Webster ES campus is completely surrounded by urban development. As shown on Figure 3, Existing Conditions, the school is bordered by the following land uses.
. North: W. 34th Street and single-family residential.
. East: Netherly Avenue (a District-owned and -maintained street) and a large condominium complex that fronts on Santa Fe Avenue. This two-story complex consists of seven buildings and runs the entire block from W. 34th Street to W. 32nd Way. A block wall topped by a wrought-iron fence and carport is adjacent to Netherly Avenue. There is one gate that permits access through this fence; a yellow school-pedestrian crosswalk is painted on Netherly Avenue from the gate to the front of the school.
. South: W. 32nd Way (a short public road between Netherly Avenue and Santa Fe Avenue), a single-family home (driveway on Santa Fe Ave.), and a 2-story, 6-unit apartment (driveway on W. 32nd Way).
. West: Southern California Edison power lines and easement (approximately 270 feet). This easement is currently being used for growing strawberries, other crops, and nursery stock. Access to this easement is provided by a gate on W. 34th Street adjacent to the north side of the school.
2.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS Webster ES serves 582 students in grades K through 5 and has 20 staff. The 12.8-acre school campus is in an area with generally flat topography. The elevation on campus is about 25 feet above mean sea level.7 The existing campus is shown in Figure 4, Photo Location Key, and Figures 4a to 4c, Campus Photographs.
7 United State Department of the Interior Geological Survey. Los Alamitos Quadrangle 7.5 minute Series (Topographic). 1964, Photorevised 1981.
October 2017 Page 5 INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 2. Environmental Setting
Four permanent school buildings face Netherly Avenue, and 3 bungalow buildings and 22 portable buildings are throughout the campus. The majority of the remaining campus consists of asphalt hardcourt play yard, with 3 turf play yards, 6 rubber mat play equipment areas, and a small school garden area. The Child Development Center building is in the northeast corner of the campus. Several mature trees are located along the campus borders, with about 8 trees on the interior of the campus.
Circulation and Parking The school has two parking lots with a total of about 88 spaces for staff; the north lot (47 spaces) and south lot (41 spaces) both have access from Netherly Avenue. Street parking is also permitted on both sides of Netherly Avenue. (Street parking is prohibited for street sweeping on the east side of the street from 4:00 AM to 8:00 AM Tuesdays, and on the west side of the street from 4:00 AM to 8:00 AM Wednesdays; both periods are before school hours.) The bus drop-off area is on Netherly Avenue fronting the central part of the campus. Student drop-off and pick-up takes place on both sides of Netherly Avenue. There are a total of about 53 parking spaces along the two-lane Netherly Avenue (see Figure 5, Existing Parking Restrictions).
Operation The school operates on a traditional, two-semester academic calendar extending from August to June. The kindergarten class schedule is from 9:00 AM to 2:50 PM. First, second, and third grade classes are from 9:00 AM to 3:05 PM, and fourth and fifth grades are from 9:00 AM to 3:10 PM.
2.4 GENERAL PLAN AND EXISTING ZONING The zoning designation of the school property is I (Institutional).8 The General Plan land use designation for the school is Institutions/Schools.9
8 Long Beach zoning map. Prepared by Department of Planning & Building and Department of Technology Services. Revised 10/2007. http://www.lbds.info/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=5031. Municipal Code: https://library.municode.com/CA/long_beach/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT21ZO_CH21.33INDI. 9 Long Beach General Plan. 1989. Land Use Element. http://www.lbds.info/planning/advance_planning/general_plan.asp.
Page 6 PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Figure 1 - Regional Location 2. Existing Setting
Los Angeles
Site
Pacific Ocean
Note: Unincorporated county areas are shown in white. 0 3 Scale (Miles) Source: ESRI, 2017 PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 2. Environmental Setting
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 8 PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Figure 2 - Local Vicinity 2. Existing Setting
Carson
405
405
Los Angeles Netherly Ave
Long Beach 710
Dominguez Channel Los Angeles River
103
Webster Elementary School Boundary 0 2,000 Note: Unincorporated county areas are shown in white. Scale (Feet) Source: ESRI, 2017 PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 2. Environmental Setting
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 10 PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Figure 3 - Existing Conditions 2. Existing Setting
Palm St
Beach St W Woodland Rd
Schooner St
Coral St W 34th St Residential
W 34th St
Harbor St
Residential
Southern California Edison Power Line Easement Netherly Ave Santa Fe Ave
W 32nd Wy
W 32nd St
Residential
Silverado Park N Springdale Dr
Webster Elementary School Boundary 0 250 Scale (Feet) Source: Google Earth Pro, 2017 PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 2. Environmental Setting
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 12 PlaceWorks Palm St
INTERIM HOUSING AT WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Figure 4 - Photo Location Key 2. Existing Setting
Schooner St
Residential 5
Coral St W 34th St
Harbor St 3
2 1 Netherly Ave
Residential
4
6 W 32nd Wy
W 32nd St
Residential
Webster Elementary School Boundary Photograph Location 1 and Direction 0 200 Scale (Feet) Source: Google Earth Pro, 2017 PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 2. Environmental Setting
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 14 PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Figure 4a - Site Photographs 2. Existing Setting
Photo 1. View looking southwest from the west edge of the school at hardcourts where most proposed portables would be installed.
Photo 2. View looking northeast from the west edge of the school at hardcourts where some proposed portables would be installed; the school’s north parking lot is shown in the background.
PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 2. Environmental Setting
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 16 PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Figure 4b - Site Photographs 2. Existing Setting
Photo 3. View looking south along Netherly Avenue from west sidewalk adjacent to school. 10-ft fence and condominium complex is shown on east side of street.
Photo 4. View looking south along Netherly Avenue toward West 32nd Way. School is on left side.
PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 2. Environmental Setting
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 18 PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Figure 4c - Site Photographs 2. Existing Setting
Photo 5. View looking southwest toward proposed portable building location along western campus from West 34th Street.
Photo 6. View looking east along West 32nd Way toward Santa Fe Avenue.
PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 2. Environmental Setting
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 20 PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Figure 5 - Existing Parking Restrictions 2. Environmental Setting
Residential
W 34th St
STUDENT DROP-OFF
SouthernPower California Line Easement Edison
30-MINUTE PARKING NO PARKING Residential
PEDESTRIAN Santa Fe Ave Netherly Ave CROSSING
STOP
W 32nd Wy
Residential
STOP Crossing 0 125 Guard Scale (Feet) Source: Google Earth Pro, 2017 PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 2. Environmental Setting
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 22 PlaceWorks
3. Project Description
3.1 PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed project consists of the installation and use of interim housing (temporary portable buildings) at Webster Elementary School. The temporary portable buildings are required to house students during modernization of the following four schools over the next four years (see Figure 5, School Locations).
1. Garfield ES 2. Webster ES 3. Muir K-8 4. Birney ES
Garfield ES, Birney ES and Muir K-8 School are hereinafter referred to as “home schools.” Campus modernizations at each school would include:
. Heating, ventilation, air conditioning (HVAC) system installation and boiler system removal . Electrical upgrades . Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) facility improvements . Fire alarm upgrades . Intercom, clocks, speakers . Overhead projectors . Ceiling repair . Interior LED lights . New floors (some schools) . Interior paint (some schools) . Exterior paint (some schools) None of the modernizations would increase capacity at any school. Permanent buildings would not be demolished or constructed. All work planned at the three home schools is considered minor and would not have any direct or indirect effect on the existing environment or surrounding neighborhoods.
Starting in 2018, Garfield ES students would be the first to move into the interim housing while modernization activities are underway. Once the Garfield ES modernization is complete, students would move back to their permanent facilities. The three other schools would continue the process in succession, with students attending classes at Webster ES portable buildings. Over four years, grades 3, 4, and 5 at each of the four schools would be moved into the interim housing while the modernization work is being done.
October 2017 Page 23 INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 3. Project Description
To ensure a consistent education, students and teachers would stay together at the interim housing. When construction is complete, the classes for these grades would resume at their own school. Students in kindergarten, 1st, and 2nd grades would continue to attend classes at each school. Because modernization work would be conducted in almost all campus buildings, the kindergarten, 1st, and 2nd grade students would use the empty classrooms and portables at each home school while their classrooms are upgraded. The kitchen, cafeteria, and other shared facilities would be upgraded during the summer when students are not in school.
It is anticipated that modernization work at each school would begin in December during winter break and be completed by December of the following year (see Table 1, below). Information and instructions about the interim housing would be distributed to all students and parents, and meetings would be held to explain the temporary procedures.
3.1.1 Facilities Eighteen portable buildings would be installed at Webster ES: 11 classrooms, 3 Special Day Class classrooms, 2 restroom buildings, an administrative office, and a music room storage building.10 All the portables would be placed in the northwest part of the campus; 10 of the 11 classrooms and the music room storage building would be placed along the western school boundary (see Figure 6, Conceptual Site Plan). Each portable building would be 24 feet by 40 feet (960 square feet). Each classroom has a maximum capacity of 35 students. The new portables would be placed on top of the existing asphalt surface. Two restroom buildings would each be 12 feet by 40 feet and have three rooms each. Each portable building would be equipped with an ADA access ramp.
3.1.2 Parking The proposed project would also include elimination of the existing parallel parking on most of both sides of Netherly Avenue. The street would be slurry coated, and new striping, signage, and bollards would be added to delineate parent and bus drop-off and pick-up zones, diagonal parking on the east side, and southbound, one-way-only travel. There is currently space for 53 parallel parking spaces on Netherly Avenue: 29 spaces on the east side of the street and 24 on the west side (parking does not include red curb no parking fire lane). At project completion there would be 34 diagonal spaces and 13 parallel spaces (total 47 spaces) on the east side of the street. There would be two bus-only zones to accommodate seven buses on the west side of the street (no parking spaces): one along the north end of the campus (3 buses for home schools) and one on the south end (4 buses for Webster ES). The project would result in a net decrease of six street parking spaces on Netherly Avenue. All other on-campus parking would remain the same as it is currently.
3.1.3 Circulation A new student loading area would be provided on the northern portion of the campus to allow parents to drop off and pick up students without parking. In this area vehicles would be allowed to stop to unload and
10 Special Day Class is a special education class serving students with intensive needs that cannot be met by the general education program; classes occupy more than 50 percent of the school day.
Page 24 PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 3. Project Description
load students without leaving their cars. The student loading loop driveway would be one-way starting at the terminus of 34th Street, ending approximately 100 feet to the south on Netherly Avenue. Vehicles leaving the student loading loop would be allowed to either turn right to proceed south on Netherly Avenue, or turn left to head north toward 34th Street.
Netherly Avenue would be converted from its current two-way configuration to one-way, southbound-only traffic flow from the student loading loop driveway to 32nd Way. The project would also eliminate most of the existing parallel parking on both sides of Netherly Avenue. The street would be slurry coated, and new striping, signage, and delineators would be installed for the bus loading zones. The west side of the street would be designated for student drop-off for cars and buses. The east side would be restriped to accommodate diagonal parking, except for the areas across the bus loading zone, which would continue to have parallel curbside parking. Students from Garfield ES, Muir K-8, and Birney ES would access the portables from Netherly Avenue through the north parking lot only; they would not walk through the Webster ES campus. Webster ES students would use the main front entrance of the school.
Two new school crosswalks would be striped across Netherly Avenue: one opposite the lunchroom/assembly building, and the second opposite the south end of the north parking lot. These are in addition to the existing crosswalk opposite the school’s administration building.
Two new ADA ramps would be installed at the sidewalk on the west side of Netherly Avenue: one at an existing school crosswalk opposite the school’s administration building, and the second at the new school crosswalk opposite the lunchroom/assembly building.
The home schools would access the portables from Netherly Avenue through the north parking lot only; they would not walk through the Webster ES campus. Webster ES students would use the main front entrance of the school. Drop-off and pick-up procedures may take a week or so for drivers to learn. The project includes several safety features that would assist in avoiding conflicts between cars and people, as listed below.
. New pavement marking on Netherly Avenue and the loop driveway to indicate the one-way directional traffic flow.
. New signage placed on Netherly Avenue and loop driveway to indicate enter-only and exit-only. . Signage to indicate the bus-only zone. . The bus-only zone would be separated from automobile traffic on Netherly Avenue with delineators such as orange cones.
. Meetings and informational packets would be distributed to instruct parents on the student drop-off and pick-up procedures.
. The District staff and Webster ES principal would review student drop-off and pick-up procedures monthly while school is in session to identify bottlenecks and areas for improvement, and make adjustments as needed.
October 2017 Page 25 INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 3. Project Description
. The District would encourage staff from other schools to carpool. . The District would encourage parents of students from other schools to rideshare with other students or take the bus.
3.1.4 Operation Three grades from each of the four elementary schools (as listed in Table 1) would attend classes at the new Webster ES portable classrooms for about one year while each campus is undergoing modernizations.
Garfield ES students would move into the interim housing first, in January 2018, during Garfield ES modernization; followed by Webster students in January 2019, Muir K-8 students in 2020, and Birney ES students in 2021. To ensure a consistent education, students and teachers would stay together. When all modernization has been completed, the temporary portable buildings at Webster ES would be removed.
Table 1 Modernization Schedule Max. no. 3rd, 4th, 5th of Buses Grade Overlap Bus Pick-up / for Total Modernization Students / Staff School WES Drop-off Transport Students at Dates School Address at WESb Schedule Schedule? Location to WESa WESc 2240 Baltic 5 2018–2019 Garfield ES 346/17 8:00-2:10 no Delta Avenue 662 Avenue Webster 1755 W. Netherly 0 2019–2020 275/15 9:00-3:10 n/a 591 ES 32nd Way Avenue 3038 Delta 0 2020–2021 Muir K-8 417/18 9:00-3:10 yes Easy Avenue 733 Avenue 710 W Spring Golden 4 2021–2022 Birney ES 307/15 8:00-2:10 no 623 Street Avenue Note: Each school would also have one or two small buses for Special Day Class students. a Standard school bus has 22–24 seats. The general guideline used for grades K-6 is 3 students to a seat. The maximum capacity of a standard school bus is 72 passengers. The District does not anticipate every student will take the bus; therefore, the maximum number of buses is not expected. b Staff includes assistant principle, office staff, janitor, speech teachers, and classroom teachers. c Total students at WES in each year of temporary student housing at WES consists of the enrollment at WES in grades K-3 in the 2016-2017 school year, 316 students (Dataquest, California Department of Education, 2017), plus the forecast enrollment in grades 3-5 at the home school in the applicable year.
The buses would pick up students at their home school at the normal start time for that school and drop off students at Webster ES. At the end of the day (normal dismissal time for the home school), students would board the bus and be taken back to the home school for pick-up by parents. Some parents would choose to drive children to and from Webster ES.
3.1.5 Construction Placement of the portable buildings at Webster ES is anticipated to begin around October 2017 and be completed in two months by December 2017. The reconfiguration of Netherly Avenue would take place while school is out of session during the winter break. Planned occupancy by Garfield ES students is scheduled to begin in January 2018. It is anticipated that modernization work at each school would begin in
Page 26 PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 3. Project Description
December during winter break and be completed by December of the following year. All construction equipment staging and worker parking would be along the northwest edge of the campus away from classrooms. The proposed project would be constructed as described below.
. Site Preparation: Five trees on the hardscape area where the portables would be installed would be removed.
. Utility Trenching: Utility trenches would be excavated, and utility pipes and cables would be laid and connected to the portable buildings. Underground utilities for water and wastewater in the restroom building would connect to existing lines along Netherly Avenue. Electricity and telephone lines to the portables would connect to existing overhead power lines on Netherly Avenue.
. Portable Installation: Portable buildings would be hauled onto the campus and place by a crane on the asphalt hardcourt play yard. Approximately 30 trucks would be required for delivery in 2017 and pick-up and removal in 2022.
. Hardcourt Restriping: Several hardcourts, including basketball courts, on the site of the proposed portables would be relocated on the school’s asphalt hardscape, including relocation of basketball poles.
. Netherly Avenue Modifications: Netherly Avenue would be restriped as a one-way (southbound) street; 34 diagonal parking spaces would be striped in the central part of the eastern side of Netherly Avenue; two ADA ramps would be made on the west side of Netherly Avenue; and two new school crosswalks would be striped. Additionally, a portion of the parking lot in the northern campus would be restriped to accommodate a drop-off/pick-up loop road. This work would be done during winter break 2017 before Garfield ES arrives for classes in January 2018.
. Finishing: Indoor finishing work on the portables would include placement of furniture and equipment. 3.2 LEAD AGENCY The LBUSD is the lead agency under CEQA and has approval authority over the proposed project. The project-related ND must be adopted by the Board of Education, confirming its adequacy in complying with the requirements of CEQA. The Board will consider the information in the ND when deciding to approve or deny the proposed project. The analysis is intended to provide environmental review for the whole of the proposed project, including the planning of the project; site clearance, utility trenching; installation of the portable buildings; reconfiguration of Netherly Avenue; and ongoing operation. 3.3 ANTICIPATED AGENCY ACTIONS It is the intent of this CEQA document to enable the District and responsible agencies to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed project, thereby enabling them to make informed decisions with respect to the requested entitlements, permits, or approvals. Agency actions are identified in Table 2.
October 2017 Page 27 INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 3. Project Description
Table 2 Anticipated Agency Actions Lead Agency Discretionary Action Adoption of the ND Long Beach Unified School District Approval of the Project Agency Action City of Long Beach Fire/Life Safety review of: 1) access roads, fire lane markings, pavers and entrances, including gates across Netherly Avenue; 2) fire hydrant location and Fire Department distribution; 3) fire flow (location of post indicator valve, fire department connection, and detector check valve assembly) Public Works Department approval of any offsite improvements (does not Public Works Department include District-owned Netherly Avenue improvements).
Page 28 PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Figure 6 - School Locations 3. Project Description
405 W Arlington St W Wardlow Rd
710 W 34th St
W 33rd St Netherly Ave
Webster Elementary W 32nd St San Francisco Ave Easy Ave
W Spring St Muir K-8 Los Angeles River Maine Ave Magnolia Ave Birney Elementary
W 28th St Santa Fe Ave Los Angeles River
W Willow St
W Burnett St
103
710 W 23rd St
W Hill St Garfield Elementary
0 0.25 Scale (Miles) Source: Google Earth Pro, 2017 PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 3. Project Description
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 30 PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Figure 7 - Conceptual Site Plan 3. Project Description
34TH STREET
Classroom Building C New Portable Buildings
Lunchroom Assembly Southern California Edison Power Line Easement Building
Admin NETHERLY AVENUE NETHERLY
Property Line
Classroom Building B
32ND WAY
Property Line
0 200 Scale (Feet) Source: NAC Architecture, 2017 PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 3. Project Description
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 32 PlaceWorks
4. Environmental Checklist
4.1 BACKGROUND
1. Project Title: Interim Housing at Daniel Webster Elementary School
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Long Beach Unified School District 2425 Webster Avenue Long Beach, CA 90810
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Elston F. Soares, Facilities Consultant (562) 997-7550 4. Project Location: The proposed interim housing project and road improvements are at Webster Elementary School. The approximately 12.8-acre school is at 1755 W. 32nd Way, on the west-central portion of the City of Long Beach in Los Angeles County, California. (Assessor Parcel Number [APN 7314-002-901]).
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Long Beach Unified School District 2425 Webster Avenue Long Beach, CA 90810
6. General Plan Designation: Institutions/Schools
7. Zoning: I (Institutional)
8. Description of Project: Long Beach Unified School District is proposing the installation and use of interim housing at Webster Elementary School. Interim housing at Webster ES is required to house students during modernization of the following four schools over the next four years: Garfield ES, Webster ES, Muir K-8, and Birney ES. Additionally, Netherly Avenue along the school frontage, which is owned and maintained by the District, would be converted from two-way to one-way southbound traffic; existing street parking on much of the east side of the street would be replaced by 34 diagonal parking spaces.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The Webster ES campus is surrounded to the north by 34th Street and single-family homes; to the south by single-family homes; to the east by a condominium complex; and to the west by Southern California Edison power lines and easement used for growing crops, including strawberries.
October 2017 Page 33 INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 4. Environmental Checklist
10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required: None. 11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun? Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code section 21083.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.94 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.
Yes. California Native American tribes have requested formal notice of proposed projects as follows: Gabrieleño Band of the Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, letter dated July 2016; San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, letter dated December 1, 2016; Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, letter dated May 16, 2016. The Long Beach Unified School District notified the tribes about this project in a letter dated July 19, 2017, and sent via certified mail and email to: • Mr. Andrew Salas, Tribal Chairman, Gabrieleño Band of the Mission Indians – Kizh Nation;
• Mr. Anthony Morales, Chief, San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians;
• Mr. Michael Mirelez, Cultural Resource Coordinator, Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians
Page 34 PlaceWorks
INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 4. Environmental Checklist
4.4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors, as well as general standards (e.g., the project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project- specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
Page 36 PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 4. Environmental Checklist
8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.
Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings X within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? X d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? X II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring X Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? X c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code X Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? X e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land X to non-forest use?
October 2017 Page 37 INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 4. Environmental Checklist
Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air X quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to X an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any X criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, X policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of X Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) X through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the X use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or X ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation X plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? X b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? X c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X
Page 38 PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 4. Environmental Checklist
Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? X VI. GEOLOGY and SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based X on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X iv) Landslides? X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, X subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to X life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where X sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the X environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse X gases? VIII. HAZARDS and HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous X materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the X environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter X mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard X to the public or the environment?
October 2017 Page 39 INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 4. Environmental Checklist
Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety X hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working X in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation X plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are X intermixed with wildlands? IX. HYDROLOGY and WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? X b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- X existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in a substantial X erosion or siltation on- or off-site d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface X runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off- site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems X or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate X Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? X i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the X failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X X. LAND USE and PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? X
Page 40 PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 4. Environmental Checklist
Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal X program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X XI. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the X state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, X specific plan or other land use plan? XII. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise X ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? X c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the X project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people X residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area X to excessive noise levels? XIII. POPULATION and HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other X infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing X elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X
October 2017 Page 41 INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 4. Environmental Checklist
Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? X b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Parks? X e) Other public facilities? X XV. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or X be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might X have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XVI. TRANSPORTATION and TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel X and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by X the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in X substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses X (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise X decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
Page 42 PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 4. Environmental Checklist
Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section X 5020.1(k), or b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set X forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. XVIII. UTILITIES and SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? X b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant X environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental X effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources or are new or X expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in X addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? X g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? X XIX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of X a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
October 2017 Page 43 INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 4. Environmental Checklist
Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of X past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or x indirectly?
Page 44 PlaceWorks
5. Environmental Analysis
Section 4.4 provided a checklist of environmental impacts. This section provides an evaluation of the impact categories and questions in the checklist.
5.1 AESTHETICS a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
No Impact. Vistas provide visual access or panoramic views to a large geographic area. The field of view from a vista location can be wide and extend into the distance. Panoramic views are usually associated with vantage points looking out over a section of urban or natural areas that provide a geographic orientation not commonly available. Examples of panoramic views include an urban skyline, valley, mountain range, the ocean, or other water bodies.11
The school campus and surrounding area are flat and developed with urban land uses, including residential uses and a power line easement used for growing crops, including nursery stock. The school campus has numerous one-story buildings, surface parking, play fields, hardcourts, student gathering areas, and ornamental trees and landscaping. Although the project would include the temporary placements of portable buildings, there are no protected or designated scenic vistas or views, and project development would not obscure any views. Therefore, no impact to scenic vistas would occur. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. The closest designated state scenic highway in Los Angeles County is over 17 miles north of the school—State Route 110, California Historic Parkway (Arroyo Seco Historic Parkway).12 The temporary portable structures associated with the project would not be visible from any designated scenic highway. Project development would not result in impacts to scenic resources within a designated state scenic highway. No impact would occur.
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
Less Than Significant Impact. The existing school campus is in an urbanized area and surrounded by residential uses and a power line easement. The project includes the temporary installation of portable structures on the school’s hardscape area. The portables would be removed in approximately four years and would be similar in height to the existing school buildings. Therefore, this project would not substantially
11 City of Los Angeles, LA CEQA Thresholds Guide, Chapter A, 2006. http://www.environmentla.org/programs/Thresholds/Complete%20Threshold%20Guide%202006.pdf. 12 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Updated September 7, 2011. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm.
October 2017 Page 45 INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 5. Environmental Analysis
degrade the existing character or quality of the school and its surroundings. Therefore, impacts to the visual character and quality of the school campus and surrounding uses would be less than significant. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact. The two major causes of light pollution are glare and spill light. Spill light is caused by misdirected light that illuminates areas outside the area intended to be lit. Glare occurs when a bright object is against a dark background, such as oncoming vehicle headlights or an unshielded light bulb.
The school campus is in an urban setting and is fully developed. The existing school generates nighttime light from security and parking lot lights and building lights (interior and exterior). Surrounding land uses also generate significant light from street lights, vehicle lights, parking lot lights, and building lights.
The proposed project would not significantly increase nighttime lighting on the campus. The portable buildings would be in the campus interior. The proposed project would not include any high-intensity lighting such as is used for athletic fields. Any new security and/or path lights would be directional and would not spill light outside the school campus. Lighting for the proposed project would not introduce lights at substantially greater intensities than existing lights on and near the school, and the project would have no impact on nighttime views. Light and glare impacts would be less than significant.
5.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact. The proposed project would not convert farmland to nonagricultural uses. There is no agricultural or farm use on or in the vicinity of the school campus; therefore, no project-related farmland conversion impact would occur. The school campus is fully developed and is not mapped as important farmland.13,14 No impact would occur.
13 Division of Land Resource Protection (DLRP). 2017, J. California Important Farmland Finder. http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/ciff/ciff.html.
Page 46 PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 5. Environmental Analysis
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with agricultural zoning or a Williamson Act contract. The existing zoning designation of the school property is I (Institutional).15 The school is not zoned for agricultural use, and project development would not conflict with such zoning. Williamson Act contracts restrict the use of privately owned land to agriculture and compatible open-space uses under contract with local governments; in exchange, the land is taxed based on actual use rather than potential market value. There is no Williamson Act contract in effect on the school campus. No impact would occur. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
No Impact. Project development would not conflict with existing zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland production. Forest land is defined as “land that can support 10-percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits.”16 Timberland is defined as “land….which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of any commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees.”17 The school campus is zoned for school use as a public facility and is not zoned for forest land or timberland use.18 No impact would occur. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. Construction of the proposed project would not result in the loss or conversion of forest land. No vegetation on the school campus is cultivated for forest resources. The portables would be placed on an asphalt playground surface and a few ornamental trees would be removed. No forest land would be affected by the proposed project, and no impacts would occur. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non- forest use?
No Impact. There is no mapped important farmland or forest land on or near the school campus, and project development would not indirectly cause conversion of such land to nonagricultural or nonforest use. Although the power line easement abutting the northwest school boundary is used for growing crops,
14 Most of urbanized Los Angeles County, including the Webster ES campus, is not mapped on the California Important Farmland Finder. 15 Long Beach Zoning Map. Prepared by Dept. of Planning & Building and Dept. of Technology Services. http://www.lbds.info/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=5030. Revised 12/2002. Municipal code: https://library.municode.com/ca/long_beach/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT21ZO_CH21.37PLDEDISPPL. 16 California PRC Section 12220(g). 17 California PRC Section 4526. 18 Long Beach Zoning Map.
October 2017 Page 47 INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 5. Environmental Analysis
including strawberries and nursery stock, CEQA analysis of impacts to mapped important farmland focuses on impacts to intensive commercial agriculture.19 No such agriculture is present on or near the school. No impact would occur.
5.3 AIR QUALITY The Air Quality section addresses the impacts of the proposed project on ambient air quality and the exposure of people, especially sensitive individuals, to unhealthful pollutant concentrations. A background discussion on the air quality regulatory setting, meteorological conditions, existing ambient air quality in the vicinity of the school, and air quality modeling can be found in Appendix A.
The primary air pollutants of concern for which ambient air quality standards (AAQS) have been established are ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM10), fine inhalable particulate matter (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and lead (Pb). Areas are classified under the federal and California Clean Air Act as either in attainment or nonattainment for each criteria pollutant based on whether the AAQS have been achieved. The South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB), which is managed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), is designated nonattainment for O3, and PM2.5 under the California and National AAQS, nonattainment for PM10 under the California AAQS, and nonattainment for lead (Los Angeles County only) under the National AAQS.20
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact. A consistency determination plays an important role in local agency project review by linking local planning and individual projects to the air quality management plan (AQMP). It fulfills the CEQA goal of informing decision makers of the environmental efforts of the project under consideration at an early enough stage to ensure that air quality concerns are fully addressed. It also provides the local agency with ongoing information as to whether they are contributing to clean air goals in the AQMP. The most recently adopted comprehensive plan is the 2016 AQMP, adopted on March 3, 2017 (see Appendix A to this Initial Study for a description of the 2016 AQMP).
Regional growth projections are used by SCAQMD to forecast future emission levels in the SoCAB. For southern California, these regional growth projections are provided by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and are partially based on land use designations in city/county general plans. Typically, only large, regionally significant projects have the potential to affect the regional growth projections.
19 California Department of Conservation (CDC). 1997. California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model: Instruction Manual. http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/LESA/Documents/lesamodl.pdf. 20 California Air Resources Board. 2016, May. Area Designations Maps: State and National. http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm.
Page 48 PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 5. Environmental Analysis
The proposed project involves slurry and striping along Netherly Avenue and in the north parking lot, relocation and striping on basketball courts, and the temporary installation of 18 portables. The proposed project is not a project of statewide, regional, or areawide significant that would require intergovernmental review under Section 15206 of the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, the project would not have the potential to substantially affect SCAG’s demographic projections. Additionally, the regional emissions generated by construction and operation of the proposed project would be less than the SCAQMD emissions thresholds, and SCAQMD would not consider the project a substantial source of air pollutant emissions that would have the potential to affect the attainment designations in the SoCAB. Thus, the project would not affect the regional emissions inventory or conflict with strategies in the AQMP. Impacts would be less than significant.
Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact. The following describes project-related impacts from short-term construction activities and long-term operation of the proposed project.
Short-Term Air Quality Impacts Construction activities would result in the generation of air pollutants. These emissions would primarily be 1) exhaust emissions from off-road diesel-powered construction equipment; 2) construction activities; 3) exhaust emissions from on-road vehicles and 4) off-gas emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from application of slurry coat to Netherly Avenue and parking lot.
Construction would involve site preparation; utility trenching, installation of 18 portables; striping along Netherly Avenue, the north parking lot, and the playground; and finishing. Construction would start in October of 2017 and end in December 2017. The portables would be removed in 2022 after construction at the other school sites is complete. Construction emissions were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2016.3.1. Results of the construction emission modeling are shown in Table 3 for maximum daily emissions. As shown in the table, air pollutant emissions from construction- related activities would be less than their respective SCAQMD regional significance threshold values. Therefore, air quality impacts from project-related construction activities would be less than significant.
October 2017 Page 49 INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 5. Environmental Analysis
Table 3 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/Day)a Source VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 Totalb PM2.5 Totalb Year 2017 Site Preparation 2 23 9 <1 4 2 Utility Trenching <1 4 3 <1 <1 <1 Portable Installation 1 9 4 <1 1 <1 Hardcourt/Netherly Ave Striping 1 12 10 <1 1 1 Finishing 1 5 5 <1 1 <1 Year 2022 Portable Removal 1 7 3 <1 1 <1 Maximum Daily Emissions 58 60 10 <1 10 7 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold No No No No No No Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.1. Highest winter or summer emissions are reported. Notes: lbs: Pounds; N/A: Not Applicable. Bold: Exceed Threshold. a Construction phasing is based on the preliminary information and equipment list approved by the District. Where specific information regarding project-related construction activities was not available, construction assumptions were based on CalEEMod defaults, which are based on construction surveys conducted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District of construction equipment and phasing for comparable projects. b Includes implementation of fugitive dust control measures required by SCAQMD under Rule 403, including watering disturbed areas a minimum of two times per day, reducing speed limit to 15 miles per hour on unpaved surfaces, replacing ground cover quickly, and street sweeping with Rule 1186–compliant sweepers.
Long-Term Operation-Related Air Quality Impact Long-term air pollutant emissions generated by the project would be generated by area sources (e.g., landscape fuel use, aerosols, and architectural coatings), energy use (natural gas) associated with the proposed portables, and mobile sources (i.e., vehicle trips associated with the relocated students from the other schools). The relocation of students and staff from the four elementary schools would generate approximately 480 average daily vehicle trips. In addition, an average trip distance of 40 miles per trip is assumed for buses. For passenger vehicles, the CalEEMod default of 16.6 miles per commercial-work vehicle trip is utilized.
Criteria air pollutant emissions were modeled using CalEEMod. Criteria air pollutants are compared to the SCAQMD’s significance thresholds in Table 4. As shown in the table, criteria air pollutant emissions from operation activities would not exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds for operation. Therefore, operation-phase regional air quality impacts are considered less than significant.
Page 50 PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 5. Environmental Analysis
Table 4 Maximum Daily Operation Emissions Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/Day)
Source VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 Total PM2.5 Total Area <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Energy <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Mobile Sources 2 12 26 <1 7 2 Total Emissions 2 12 26 <1 7 2 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold No No No No No No Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.1. Highest winter or summer emissions are reported. Notes: lbs: Pounds; N/A: Not Applicable. Totals may not total to 100 percent due to rounding.
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less Than Significant Impact. The SoCAB is designated nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5 under the California and National AAQS, nonattainment for PM10 under the California AAQS, and nonattainment for lead under the National AAQS.21 According to SCAQMD methodology, any project that does not exceed or can be mitigated to less than the daily threshold values would not add significantly to a cumulative impact.22 Construction and operational activities would not result in emissions in excess of SCAQMD’s significant thresholds. Therefore, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants and impacts would be less than significant.
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project could expose sensitive receptors to elevated pollutant concentrations if it would cause or contribute significantly to elevated pollutant concentration levels. Unlike regional emissions, localized emissions are typically evaluated in terms of air concentration rather than mass so they can be more readily correlated to potential health effects.
Construction LSTs Localized significance thresholds (LSTs) are based on the California AAQS, which are the most stringent AAQS that have been established to provide a margin of safety in the protection of public health and welfare. They are designated to protect sensitive receptors most susceptible to further respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and people engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Construction LSTs are based on the size of the project site, distance to the nearest sensitive receptor, and Source Receptor Area. Receptors proximate to the proposed project site are the residences to the west and northwest.
21 California Air Resources Board. 2016, May. Area Designations Maps: State and National. http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. 22 South Coast Air Quality Management District. 1993. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Handbook.
October 2017 Page 51 INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 5. Environmental Analysis
Air pollutant emissions generated by construction activities are anticipated to cause temporary increases in air pollutant concentrations. Table 5 shows the maximum daily construction emissions (pounds per day) generated during onsite construction activities compared with the SCAQMD’s screening-level construction LSTs. As shown in the table, the maximum daily NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 construction emissions generated from onsite construction-related activities would be less than their respective SCAQMD LSTs. Therefore, project-related construction activities would not have the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The impact would be less than significant.
Table 5 Localized Construction Emissions Pollutants(lbs/day)a,b Source NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 2017 Utility Trenching 3 2 0.23 0.21 2017 Portable Installation 6 2 0.26 0.24 2017 Hardcourt/Netherly Ave Striping 5 4 0.40 0.38 2017 Finishing 12 9 0.74 0.68 2022 Portable Removal 4 2 0.17 0.16 SCAQMD <1.00 acre LST 57 585 4.00 3.00 Exceeds LST? No No No No 2017 Site Preparation 22 8 3.39 2.21 SCAQMD <1.00 acre LST 61 629 4.51 2.25 Exceeds LST? No No No No Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.1., and SCAQMD 2008 & 2011.23 Notes: In accordance with SCAQMD methodology, only onsite stationary sources and mobile equipment occurring on the proposed project site are included in the analysis. LSTs are based on receptors within 82 feet (25 meters) of the proposed project site in Source Receptor Area (SRA) 4. a The construction schedule is based on the preliminary information approved by the District. Where specific information construction information was not available, construction assumptions were based on CalEEMod defaults, which are based on construction surveys conducted by SCAQMD of construction equipment and phasing for comparable projects. b Includes implementation of fugitive dust control measures required by SCAQMD under Rule 403, including watering disturbed areas a minimum of two times per day, reducing speed limit to 15 miles per hour on unpaved surfaces, replacing ground cover quickly, and street sweeping with Rule 1186–compliant sweepers.
Construction Health Risk SCAQMD currently does not require health risk assessments to be conducted for short-term emissions from construction equipment. Emissions from construction equipment primarily consist of diesel particulate matter (DPM). The Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment (OEHHA) has recently adopted new guidance for the preparation of health risk assessments issued in March 2015.24 OEHHA has developed a cancer risk factor and noncancer chronic reference exposure level for DPM, but these factors are based on continuous exposure over a 30-year time frame. No short-term acute exposure levels have been developed for DPM. The proposed project is anticipated to be developed in approximately three months, which would limit the duration of exposure for onsite and offsite receptors. SCAQMD currently does not require the evaluation
23 South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2008, July. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/final-lst-methodology- document.pdf; SCAQMD. 2011. Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds. 24 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2015, February. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf.
Page 52 PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 5. Environmental Analysis
of long-term excess cancer risk or chronic health impacts for a short-term project. In addition, construction activities would not exceed LST significance thresholds. For the reasons stated above, it is anticipated that construction emissions would not pose a threat to onsite and offsite receptors at or near the school, and project-related construction health impacts would be less than significant.
Operation LSTs Operation of the proposed project would not generate substantial quantities of emission from onsite, stationary sources. Land uses that have the potential to generate substantial stationary sources of emissions that would require a permit from SCAQMD include industrial land uses, such as chemical processing and warehousing operations where substantial truck idling could occur onsite. The proposed project does not fall within these categories of uses. While operation of the proposed project would result in the use of standard onsite mechanical equipment such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning units installed to the new proposed portable classrooms, air pollutant emissions generated from these activities would be nominal. Therefore, localized air quality impacts related to operation-related emissions would be less than significant.
Carbon Monoxide Hotspots Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of CO called hotspots. These pockets have the potential to exceed the state one-hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) or the eight-hour standard of 9.0 ppm. Because CO is produced in greatest quantities from vehicle combustion and does not readily disperse into the atmosphere, adherence to ambient air quality standards is typically demonstrated through an analysis of localized CO concentrations. Hotspots are typically produced at intersections, where traffic congestion is highest because vehicles queue for longer periods and are subject to reduced speeds.
The SoCAB has been designated attainment under both the National and California AAQS for CO. Under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour—or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited—in order to generate a significant CO impact.25 The portables would temporarily house students from nearby schools. The proposed project would generate approximately 480 average daily trips associated with the relocated students and staff and would be substantially below the number of trips required to form a hotspot. Furthermore, the SoCAB has since been designated as attainment under both the national and California AAQS for CO. The project would not have the potential to substantially increase CO hotspots at intersections in the vicinity of the project site. Localized air quality impacts related to mobile-source emissions would be less than significant.
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not result in objectionable odors. The threshold for odor is if a project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, which states:
A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any
25 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017, May Revised. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.
October 2017 Page 53 INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 5. Environmental Analysis
considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. The provisions of this rule shall not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals.
The type of facilities that are considered to have objectionable odors include wastewater treatments plants, compost facilities, landfills, solid waste transfer stations, fiberglass manufacturing facilities, paint/coating operations (e.g., auto body shops), dairy farms, petroleum refineries, asphalt batch plants, chemical manufacturing, and food manufacturing facilities. The use proposed by the project do not fall within the aforementioned land uses. Emissions from construction equipment, such as diesel exhaust and volatile organic compounds from architectural coatings, may generate odors. However, these odors would be low in concentration, temporary, and are not expected to affect a substantial number of people. Therefore, odor impacts would be less than significant.
5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. The school campus is fully developed, with buildings, asphalt, concrete, and landscape. Vegetation on campus is limited to ornamental trees, shrubs, and turf. There is no native habitat and no suitable habitat for threatened, endangered, or rare species. No impact would occur. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. Sensitive natural communities are natural communities that are considered rare in the region by regulatory agencies; that are known to provide habitat for sensitive animal or plant species; or are known to be important wildlife corridors. Riparian habitats are those occurring along the banks of rivers and streams. There is no sensitive natural community or riparian habitat on the campus. No impact would occur. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact. The school campus is fully developed, and there are no protected wetlands on campus. The proposed project would be confined to the school campus and would not have the potential to impact any offsite protected wetland areas. The portables are being placed on an area that is hardscape and would not change the hydrology of the campus. No impact would occur.
Page 54 PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 5. Environmental Analysis
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with any native fish or wildlife species. Wildlife corridors link areas of natural habitats separated by rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or human disturbance. Corridors accommodate animal movement to enhance genetic interchange and recolonization of the species, and provide buffers for species populations to use in response to environmental changes and natural disasters. Large corridors (often referred to as habitat or landscape linkages) can provide both transitory and resident habitat for a variety of species.
The elementary school campus does not function as a wildlife movement corridor due to its location in an urbanized area and lack of any nearby habitat. The campus is fully developed and does not support native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. The campus does not have any watercourse or water body, greenbelt, or native habitat for fish or wildlife.
Migrating birds use trees as nesting or nursery sites, and the project construction would require the removal of four trees. Migratory birds are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Over 800 species are currently on the list, including the American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), found throughout the urban areas in Los Angeles. Also, the California Fish and Game Code (Section 3503.5) prohibits direct impacts to hawks, eagles, owls, and to the nest or egg of any bird species. If construction activities are planned during the bird nesting season and require the removal of trees, or if construction is near off-site, mature trees, bird nesting may be disturbed. Disturbance to native bird species during the nesting season (approximately mid-February to mid-August) would be a violation of MBTA and California Fish and Game Code. Because the trees would be removed around October 2017, removal would not overlap with the nesting season. Impacts to native resident or migratory birds would be less than significant. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact. The City of Long Beach does not have a tree preservation ordinance that could be applicable to the school. Project development would not impact local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact. The school is not within an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or similar plan.26 No impact would occur.
26 US Geological Survey (USGS). 2015, November 30. Region 8 Habitat Conservation Plans (data layer in USGS National Map). https://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/?q=ags%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencebase.gov%2Farcgis%2Frest%2Fservices%2F Catalog%2F521fdafbe4b08e3fb9959e41%2FMapServer.
October 2017 Page 55 INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 5. Environmental Analysis
5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5?
No Impact. Section 15064.5 defines historic resources as resources listed or determined to be eligible for listing by the State Historical Resources Commission, a local register of historical resources, or the lead agency. Generally a resource is considered “historically significant” if it meets one of the following criteria:
i) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;
ii) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
iii) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values;
iv) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Webster ES was built in or around the early 1950s.27 The school is fully developed with no visible native ground surface exposed. One building predating the school is shown in the southwestern part of the school site on an 1896 topographic map.28,29
Project development does not involve site grading. A limited amount of excavation for trenching for utilities would be needed for the placement of the portables on the asphalt playfield. No impact to historical resources would occur. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
No Impact. The school is fully developed. The proposed project consists of the installation and use of temporary portable buildings for interim housing and reconfiguration of the existing District-owned street; these area are already paved with asphalt and concrete. The project does not involve site grading. A limited amount of excavation for trenching for utilities would be needed for the placement of the portables on the asphalt. No impact to archeological resources would occur.
27 The school is shown in a 1953 aerial photograph (Nationwide Environmental Title Research, Inc. 2017, July 11. Historic Aerials. Historicaerials.com.); but not shown on a 1949 topographic map (US Geological Survey. Long Beach Quadrangle Topographic Map, 1949. http://ims.er.usgs.gov/gda_services/download?item_id=5657703. Accessed July 11, 2017). 28 US Geological Survey. 1896. Downey Sheet Topographic Map; Scale 1:62,500. http://ims.er.usgs.gov/gda_services/download?item_id=5501479. Accessed July 11, 2017. 29 The 1896 topographic map shows, in addition to the above-mentioned building, two roads – one north-south, the other east-west – intersecting at or near the middle of the school site.
Page 56 PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 5. Environmental Analysis
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
No Impact. Several vertebrate fossil localities have been discovered in the southern part of the City of Long Beach. The closest known paleontological resources were identified in older Quaternary deposits near 7th Street and Pacific Coast Highway.30 The school is mapped as being located on late to middle Pleistocene surficial deposits.31 Limited shallow excavation for trenching for utilities is planned in an area that is already developed as an operating elementary school. Impacts to paleontological resources would not occur.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
No Impact. The proposed project does not involve earth movement, and discovery of human remains is not anticipated during shallow trenching for utility hookups to the portable buildings. Impacts to human remains would not occur.
5.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
No Impact. Based on a review of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map website,32 the City of Long Beach General Plan (1988),33 and the Geologic Map of the Long Beach 30' X 60' Quadrangle,34 the school campus is not on a known fault. The nearest Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone to the school is along the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone about one mile to the northeast.35 Therefore, there is no potential at the school for the rupture of a known earthquake fault. No impact related to surface rupture of a known fault would occur on the school campus.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact. A number of faults in the southern California area are considered active, and the school is expected to experience strong seismic ground shaking in the future. The
30 City of Long Beach. 2015. Southeast Area Specific Plan EIR City of Long Beach. Accessed July 3, 2017. http://www.lbds.info/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=5957. 31 Saucedo, G. J., H. G. Greene, M. P. Kennedy, and S. P. Bezore, 2003. Geologic Map of the Long Beach 30’ X 60’ Quadrangle, California, Version 1.0, California Geological Survey Regional Geologic Map Series, Map No. 5, scale 1:100,000. 32 California Geological Survey, 2017. Regulatory Maps Portal website, located at http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=regulatorymaps 33 City of Long Beach. General Plan, http://www.lbds.info/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=2544 34 Saucedo, G. J., H. G. Greene, M. P. Kennedy, and S. P. Bezore, 2003. Geologic Map of the Long Beach 30’ X 60’ Quadrangle, California, Version 1.0, California Geological Survey Regional Geologic Map Series, Map No. 5, scale 1:100,000. 35 California Geological Survey, 2017. Regulatory Maps Portal website.
October 2017 Page 57 INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 5. Environmental Analysis
proposed portable structures would be constructed in accordance with applicable building codes and standards. The most recent state building standard is the 2016 California Building Code (CBC) (Title 24, Part 2, California Code of Regulations), with local, more restrictive amendments based on local geographic, topographic, or climatic conditions. These codes provide minimum standards to protect property and the public welfare by regulating the design and construction of building frames and other building elements to mitigate the effects of seismic shaking and adverse soil conditions. The CBC’s provisions for earthquake safety are based on factors such as occupancy type, the types of soil and rock on campus, and the probable strength of ground motion at the school. Any structure built for this project would adhere to the most recent version of the CBC. Impacts related to seismic ground shaking would be less than significant.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction refers to loose, saturated sand or gravel deposits that lose their load supporting capability when subjected to intense shaking. Any buildings or structures on these sediments may float, sink, or tilt as if on a body of water during intense shaking. Liquefaction potential varies based on three main contributing factors: 1) cohesionless, granular soils with relatively low densities (usually of Holocene age); 2) shallow groundwater (generally less than 50 feet); and 3) moderate to high seismic ground shaking. Lateral spreading refers to lateral displacement of large, surficial blocks of soil as a result of pore pressure buildup or liquefaction in a subsurface layer.
The school is in a Zone of Required Investigation for Liquefaction mapped by the California Geological Survey.36 The school campus is underlain by Holocene alluvial soft clay, silt, silty sand, and sand of fan deposits associated with the active Los Angeles River, Rio Hondo, and San Gabriel River. The Holocene Epoch extends from about 11,700 years before present to the present. Such deposits, when saturated, are considered highly susceptible to liquefaction.37
The historical high groundwater level is between 20 and 30 feet below ground surface (bgs).38 Groundwater levels in spring 2017 were about 46.7 feet bgs in a well northwest of the intersection of Long Beach Boulevard and Del Amo Boulevard in the City of Long Beach, about 2.4 miles northeast of the school; and approximately 37.6 feet bgs in a well northwest of the intersection of Wilmington Avenue and 213th Street in the City of Carson, about 1.8 miles northwest of the school.39
The portable buildings would be installed on top of existing hardcourts. Portable building construction complies with Division of the State Architect (DSA) safety requirements. Thus, impacts related to liquefaction are expected to be less than significant.
36 California Geological Survey (CGS). 2017, March 3. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation: Long Beach Quadrangle, located at http://gmw.conservation.ca.gov/SHP/EZRIM/Maps/LONG_BEACH_EZRIM.pdf. 37 California Geological Survey (CGS). 1998. Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Long Beach 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California. 38 California Geological Survey (CGS). 1998. Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Long Beach 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California, located at http://gmw.conservation.ca.gov/SHP/EZRIM/Reports/SHZR/SHZR_028_Long_Beach.pdf. 39 Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2017, July 6. Groundwater Information Center Map Interactive Map Application. https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/gicima/.
Page 58 PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 5. Environmental Analysis
The soft deposits under the school are considered susceptible to seismic settlement and/or collapse due to their high liquefaction potential. Strong ground shaking can cause settlement of soils underlying the school by allowing sediment particles to become more tightly packed. Artificial fills, if not adequately compacted, may also experience seismically induced settlement. Because only portable classrooms would be placed on top of existing hardscape, no significant impacts from seismic settlement or collapse would occur.
Lateral spreading is a phenomenon where large blocks of intact, nonliquefied soil move downslope on a large liquefied substratum. The mass moves toward an unconfined area, such as a descending slope or stream-cut bluff, and has been known to move on slope gradients as little as one degree. A liquefaction- induced lateral spread landslide is unlikely because of the relatively flat topography. No impact related to lateral spreading would occur.
Seismically induced ground lurching occurs when soil or rock masses move at right angles to a cliff or steep slope in response to seismic waves. Structures built on these masses can experience significant lateral and vertical deformations if ground lurching occurs. The school is on relatively flat terrain, and the potential for ground lurching is considered low. Therefore, no significant adverse impact related to ground lurching is anticipated.
iv) Landslides?
No Impact. Marginally stable slopes (including existing landslides) may be subject to earthquake-induced landslides. The landslide hazard depends on many factors, including existing slope stability, shaking potential, and presence of existing landslides. The school terrain is relatively flat, and no landslides have been mapped near the school.40 Therefore, landslides would not impact the school.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less Than Significant Impact. Soils have already been disturbed by development, and the portable buildings would be installed on hardcourts. Therefore, the loss of topsoil is not a potential impact. Soils are particularly prone to erosion during the grading phase of development, especially during heavy rains. No grading would be performed for this project. The ground surface of the area where the proposed portable classrooms would be placed is covered with asphalt and would remain intact during development. Impacts related to soil erosion would be less than significant.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Less Than Significant Impact. Landsliding, lateral spreading, liquefaction, and collapse have been discussed in Section 5.6-a-iii and would be less than significant. Subsidence of basins attributed to overdraft of groundwater aquifers or overpumping of petroleum reserves has been reported in various parts of
40 Saucedo, G. J., H. G. Greene, M. P. Kennedy, and S. P. Bezore, 2003. Geologic Map of the Long Beach 30’ X 60’ Quadrangle, California, Version 1.0, California Geological Survey Regional Geologic Map Series, Map No. 5, scale 1:100,000, located at
October 2017 Page 59 INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 5. Environmental Analysis
southern California. Based on the presence of shallow groundwater in the vicinity of the school, overdraft of the groundwater aquifer beneath the school is unlikely. Oil extraction is ongoing from the eastern offshore portion of the Wilmington Oil Field immediately off the coast of the City of Long Beach. Recycled water is injected into the ground to repressurize oil-bearing rock layers to prevent land subsidence.41 Therefore, substantial hazards from ground subsidence are not anticipated.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
Less Than Significant Impact. Highly expansive soils swell when they absorb water and shrink as they dry and can cause structural damage to building foundations and roads. Thus, they are less suitable for development than nonexpansive soils. The school area is underlain by soft alluvial soils consisting of clay, silt, silty sand, and sand.42 The school is currently developed with hardscape, which would be left intact for this project (which involves the placement of portable classrooms on top). Based on the exclusive use of portable classrooms on intact hardscape, the potential impact associated with expansive soils is considered less than significant. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
No Impact. The proposed project would not require the installation of a septic tank or alternative wastewater disposal system and would utilize the local sewer system. Therefore, no impacts would result from soil conditions in relation to septic tanks or other onsite wastewater disposal systems.
5.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Scientists have concluded that human activities are contributing to global climate change by adding large amounts of heat-trapping gases, known as greenhouse gases (GHGs), into the atmosphere. The primary source of these GHG is fossil fuel use. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has identified four major GHGs—water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and ozone (O3)—that are the likely cause of an increase in global average temperatures observed within the 20th and 21st centuries. Other GHG identified by the IPCC that contribute to global warming to a lesser extent include nitrous oxide 43 (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydro fluorocarbons, per fluorocarbons, and chlorofluorocarbons.
Information on manufacture of cement, steel, and other “life cycle” emissions that would occur as a result of the project are not applicable and are not included in the analysis.44 Black carbon emissions are not included in the GHG analysis because the California Air Resources Board (CARB) does not include this pollutant in
41 City of Long Beach Water Department. 2016, June 2. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, located at https://wuedata.water.ca.gov/public/uwmp_attachments/8329084098/LBWD2015UWMP.pdf. 42 California Geological Survey (CGS). 1998. Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Long Beach 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California, located at http://gmw.conservation.ca.gov/SHP/EZRIM/Reports/SHZR/SHZR_028_Long_Beach.pdf. 43 Water vapor (H2O) is the strongest GHG and the most variable in its phases (vapor, cloud droplets, ice crystals). However, water vapor is not considered a pollutant, but part of the feedback loop rather than a primary cause of change. 44 Please see Appendix A for further details regarding “life cycle” emissions.
Page 60 PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 5. Environmental Analysis
the state’s AB 32 inventory and treats this short-lived climate pollutant separately.45 A background discussion on the GHG regulatory setting and GHG modeling can be found in Appendix A to this Initial Study.
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. Global climate change is not confined to a particular project area and is generally accepted as the consequence of global industrialization over the last 200 years. A typical project, even a very large one, does not generate enough greenhouse gas emissions on its own to influence global climate change significantly; hence, the issue of global climate change is, by definition, a cumulative environmental impact.
The proposed project would generate nominal operational GHG emissions from energy use (indirectly from purchased electricity use and directly through fuel consumed for building heating), mobile sources (burning of fossil fuels in vehicles), and area sources (e.g., equipment used on-site, consumer products, coatings) from the installed portables. Annual GHG emissions were calculated for construction of the project and are amortized over 30 years to account for GHG emissions from the construction phase of the project. Project-related GHG emissions are shown in Table 6. As shown in the table, implementation of the proposed project would generate 979 metric tons of carbon dioxide–equivalent (MTCO2e) emissions per year. The total increase of GHG emissions from the project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s bright-line threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e, and the proposed project’s cumulative contribution to GHG emissions is less than significant.46
45 Particulate matter emissions, which include black carbon, are analyzed in Section 3.2, Air Quality. Black carbon contributes to climate change both directly, by absorbing sunlight, and indirectly, by depositing on snow (making it melt faster) and by interacting with clouds and affecting cloud formation. Emissions of black carbon have sharply declined due to efforts to reduce on-road and off-road vehicle emissions, especially diesel particulate matter. The State's existing air quality policies will virtually eliminate black carbon emissions from on-road diesel engines within 10 years (California Air Resources Board. 2017, March. Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/shortlived/meetings/03142017/final_slcp_report.pdf.). 46 This threshold is based on a combined threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e for all land use types, proposed by SCAQMD’s Working Group based on a survey of the GHG emissions inventory of CEQA projects. Approximately 90 percent of CEQA projects’ GHG emissions inventories exceed 3,000 MTCO2e, which is based on a potential threshold approach cited in CAPCOA’s white paper, “CEQA and Climate Change.”
October 2017 Page 61 INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 5. Environmental Analysis
Table 6 Project-Related GHG Emissions Source MTCO2e/yeara Percent of Total Proposed Project Area <1 0% Energy 52 5% Mobile 909 93% Waste 11 1% Water 7 1% Amortized Construction Emissionsa 1 <1% Total Emissions 979 NA SCAQMD’s Bright-line Threshold 3,000 NA Exceeds Bright-Line Threshold No NA Source: CalEEMod, Version 2016.3.1. Notes: Totals may not equal to the sum of the values shown due to rounding. MTCO2e: metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent a Construction emissions are amortized over a 30-year project lifetime per recommended SCAQMD methodology.
Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact. Applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions include CARB’s Scoping Plan and the Southern California Association of Governments’ Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). A consistency analysis with these plans is presented below.
CARB Scoping Plan CARB’s Scoping Plan is California’s GHG reduction strategy to achieve the state’s GHG emissions reduction target established by Assembly Bill (AB) 32, which is to return to 1990 emission levels by year 2020. The CARB Scoping Plan is applicable to state agencies but not directly applicable to cities/counties and individual projects. Nonetheless, the Scoping Plan has been the primary tool used to develop performance-based and efficiency-based CEQA criteria and GHG reduction targets for climate action planning efforts.
Since adoption of the 2008 Scoping Plan, state agencies have adopted programs identified in the plan, and the legislature has passed additional legislation to achieve the GHG reduction targets. Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions include the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), California Appliance Energy Efficiency regulations, California Renewable Energy Portfolio standard, changes in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, and other early action measures as necessary to ensure the state is on target to achieve the GHG emissions reduction goals of AB 32. Also, new buildings are required to comply with the 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and 2016 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). Recently, CARB released the Draft 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update to address the new 2030 interim target to achieve a 40 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2030, established by Senate Bill (SB) 32
Page 62 PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 5. Environmental Analysis
(CARB 2017a).47 While measures in the Scoping Plan apply to state agencies and not the proposed project, the project’s GHG emissions would be reduced from compliance with statewide measures that have been adopted since AB 32 and SB 32 were adopted.
SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy In addition to AB 32, the California legislature passed SB 375 to connect regional transportation planning to land use decisions made at a local level. SB 375 requires the metropolitan planning organizations to prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) in their regional transportation plans to achieve the per capita GHG reduction targets. For the SCAG region, the SCS was adopted in April 2016.48 The SCS does not require that local general plans, specific plans, or zoning be consistent with the SCS, but provides incentives for consistency for governments and developers. The portables would be constructed to temporarily house students from nearby schools and striping would update existing playground and parking facilities. The proposed project would not interfere with SCAG’s ability to implement the regional strategies outlined in the RTP/SCS.
5.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project involves the placement of interim housing (temporary portable buildings) and the reconfiguration of Netherly Avenue for one-way traffic at Webster ES. Project-related construction activities would require the use of hazardous materials such as fuels, lubricants, and greases in construction equipment and coatings used in construction. Onsite construction equipment might require routine or emergency maintenance that could result in the release of oil, diesel fuel, transmission fluid, or other materials. However, the materials used would not be in such quantities or stored in such a manner as to pose a significant safety hazard or environmental threat. These activities would also be short term or one time in nature. Significant amounts of hazardous materials would not be transported, used, or disposed of in conjunction with the operation of the proposed project. Maintenance of the portable buildings—to be used onsite for four years—would likely require the use of cleaners, solvents, paints, and other janitorial products that are potentially hazardous. However, these materials would be utilized in relatively small quantities and would be stored in compliance with established state and federal requirements. With the exercise of normal operational safety practices currently employed at the school, significant impacts would not occur.
47 California Air Resources Board. 2017, January 20. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update: The Proposed Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_pp_final.pdf. 48 Southern California Association of Governments. 2016, April. The 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS): A Plan for Mobility, Accessibility, Sustainability, and a High Quality of Life. http://scagrtpscs.net/Documents/2016/final/f2016RTPSCS.pdf.
October 2017 Page 63 INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 5. Environmental Analysis
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is on a developed elementary school campus, which does not use any significant quantities of hazardous materials in its operation. Also, construction activities would not involve a significant amount of hazardous materials, and their use would be temporary. Project construction and operational workers would be trained on the proper use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials. Construction projects typically maintain supplies onsite for containing and cleaning small spills of hazardous materials. No significant impacts would result from project implementation.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions, and no significant amounts of hazardous materials, substances, or wastes would be transported, used, or disposed of in conjunction with the facility’s operation. The onsite use of hazardous materials would be restricted to typical cleaning solvents and paints used by the school’s janitorial and/or maintenance staff. These materials would be utilized in small quantities and stored in compliance with established state and federal requirements. No significant impacts would result from project implementation.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. Webster ES is listed as a Small Quantity Generator of hazardous wastes on the US Environmental Protection Agency Enviromapper website.49 No hazardous materials release, or other condition posing a substantial hazard to the public or the environment, is documented on the website. The aforementioned listing does not indicate that project implementation would pose a substantial hazard to the public or the environment, and impacts would be less than significant. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
Less Than Significant Impact. The school is about three miles west of Long Beach Airport. The school is outside of the Airport Influence Area surrounding Long Beach Airport in which land uses are regulated to minimize aircraft crash hazards to persons on the ground.50 Project implementation would not cause substantial hazards to people onsite, and impacts would be less than significant.
49 US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2017, July 6. EnviroMapper for EnviroFacts, located at http://www.epa.gov/emefdata/em4ef.home. A small quantity generator of hazardous wastes generates over 100 kg (220 pounds) but less than 1,000 kg (2,200 pounds) of hazardous wastes per month. 50 Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission (LACALUC). 2003, May 19. Long Beach Airport Airport Influence Area, located at http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/project/aluc_airport-long-beach.pdf.
Page 64 PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 5. Environmental Analysis
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact. The nearest heliport to the school is the Long Beach Memorial Medical Center Heliport about 1.9 miles to the southeast.51 The portable buildings would be one story high, the same as the other buildings on campus, and would not create a safety hazard. No impact would occur. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with any adopted emergency response or evacuation plans. The school’s surrounding roadways would continue to provide emergency access through the project area and to surrounding properties during the project’s construction. The project school includes Netherly Avenue, which is owned and maintained by the District, and the project includes restriping Netherly Avenue from two-way to one-way-southbound traffic flow. The proposed project would not necessitate any offsite roadway modification. If temporary closure of a street is required, the project’s contractor would be required to provide the city with a construction schedule and plans for the closure of the street and to ensure that the placement of construction materials and equipment do not obstruct a detour route. The contractor would be required to comply with recommendations from the Long Beach Fire Department for reducing impacts to emergency response or evacuation plans. Onsite emergency response would continue to be facilitated through the use of the school’s driveways, parking lots, and paved areas. Adequate fire lanes from and to the portables would be provided. No significant impacts would occur as a result of project development. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
No Impact. Webster ES is in an urbanized, builtout portion of the City of Long Beach and is outside of fire hazard severity zones designated by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. The nearby cities of Signal Hill, Carson, and Seal Beach also are not zoned as fire hazard severity zones. The nearest high severity zones are in the Palos Verdes Hills approximately 5.9 miles southwest of the school.52 Future development under the proposed project would not pose wildfire-related hazards to people or structures. Therefore, no impact would occur.
51 Airnav.com. 2017, July 6. Airport Information, located at http://www.airnav.com/airports/. 52 California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention (CAL FIRE). 2011, September. CalFire, 2011. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA: Los Angeles County, located at http://frap.fire.ca.gov/webdata/maps/los_angeles/LosAngelesCounty.pdf.
October 2017 Page 65 INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 5. Environmental Analysis
5.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Less Than Significant Impact. The school is within the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. Drainage and surface water discharges from the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Site preparation for the placement of the portables is not expected to have significant soil disturbance activities that would increase soil erosion and the amount of silt entering the local stormwater drainage system. Limited soil disturbance would occur for trenching for placement of subsurface utilities for the portables. The area that would be disturbed is less than one acre so the project is not required to complete and file Permit Registration Documents with the State Water Resources Control Board prior to the start of construction. No Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan is required.53 The portables are being placed in an area that is already developed, and the amount of hardscaping is not being altered. Project water quality impacts would be less than significant. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
Less Than Significant Impact. Webster ES is located over the West Coast Subbasin of the Coastal Plain of Los Angeles Groundwater Basin.54 The City of Long Beach Water Department supplies water to the school campus and the surrounding community. Groundwater from the Central Subbasin—northeast of the West Coast Subbasin—of the Coastal Plain of Los Angeles Groundwater Basin comprised about 42 percent of the City’s water supply in 2015 and is forecast to comprise about 44 percent of supplies in 2040. The remainder of the City’s water supplies in 2015 and forecast supplies in 2040 consists of imported water from the Colorado River watershed and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay Delta and recycled water.55
The project does not propose groundwater wells that would extract groundwater from the aquifer. Construction and operation of the portables would not lower the groundwater table or deplete groundwater supplies. The school does not provide intentional groundwater recharge; therefore, the project would not interfere with groundwater recharge. Project implementation would temporarily shift attendance of some students between schools, but would not increase total District enrollment, and thus would not expand total water demands within the District.
53 The area of soil disturbance is considered to be the total footprint of 18 portable buildings at 960 square feet each (24 x 40 feet); that is, about 17,280 square feet or 0.4 acre. 54 Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2017, June 26. Groundwater Information Center Map Interactive Map Application. https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/gicima/. 55 City of Long Beach Water Department. 2016, June 2. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan.
Page 66 PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 5. Environmental Analysis
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site.
Less Than Significant Impact. The portables would be placed on existing asphalt hardscape without altering the amount or route of drainage at the school. There are no streams or rivers on the campus. The two nearest waterways to the school—the Los Angeles River about 0.6 miles to the east and the Dominguez Channel about 0.6 mile to the west—are both engineered channels. The two nearest municipal storm drain inlets to the school—both west of Santa Fe Avenue: one just north of 34th Street and one just south of 32nd Way—are part of a network of storm drains discharging into the Los Angeles River.56 The proposed project would not substantially alter existing drainage patterns or substantially increase stormwater runoff to existing drainage facilities. Drainage from the school would continue to flow into existing storm drain systems, with no substantial increase in stormwater runoff.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Less Than Significant Impact. Drainage patterns would be similar to existing conditions, as discussed above in item (c). The project would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the school or area. No additional surface area would be paved which could result in an increase in the amount of surface runoff. Thus, project development would not increase the amount of surface runoff on- or off-site, and no impacts would occur. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not increase the amount of runoff water generated on site. Runoff from the school would continue to flow into existing storm drains with no increase. The proposed project would not result in on- or offsite flooding. Impacts would not be significant. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact would occur if the proposed project would substantially degrade water quality. The placement of portables on asphalt paved surface would not alter water quality. The proposed project would be required to comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Project water quality impacts would be less than significant.
56 Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW). 2017, July 6. Los Angeles County Storm Drain System. http://dpw.lacounty.gov/fcd/stormdrain/index.cfm.
October 2017 Page 67 INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 5. Environmental Analysis
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
No Impact. The project is in a 500-year flood zone, but not a 100-year flood zone, mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.57 The project would not develop housing. No impact would occur.
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact. The school is outside of 100-year flood zones, and no impact would occur.
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Less Than Significant Impact. The school is in the dam inundation area for Hansen Dam, a flood control dam on the Tujunga Wash in the San Fernando Valley about 32 miles north of the school.58 Hansen Dam, built in 1940, is operated by the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The Corps assigned the dam a Dam Safety Action Class III, or DSAC III, rating in March 2009, indicating that the dam is significantly inadequate, or the combination of life, economic, or environmental consequences with probability of failure is moderate to high. The Corps is improving flood mapping for a variety of flood scenarios. The Corps updates the Emergency Action and Notification Sub-Plan for Hansen Dam annually. A special dam inspection team will conduct an inspection when trigger elevation or the historical maximum high pool elevation of 1040 feet above mean sea level has been reached.59 Considering the inspections and flood hazard preparation being undertaken by the Corps, dam inundation impacts to the school are considered less than significant.
The school is not in an area mapped as protected from 100-year floods by levees,60 and project implementation would not expose people or structures to substantial hazards from levee failure.
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Less Than Significant Impact. A seiche is a surface wave created when a body of water is shaken, usually by earthquake activity. Seiches are of concern relative to water storage facilities because inundation from a seiche can occur if the wave overflows a containment wall, such as the wall of a reservoir, water storage tank, dam or other artificial body of water. Although there are no large water tanks in the area that could impact the school, there are dams in the region that could create flooding impacts. Thirteen dams in the greater Los Angeles area moved or cracked during the 1994 Northridge earthquake. However, none were severely damaged. This low damage level was due in part to completion of the retrofitting of dams and reservoirs pursuant to the 1972 State Dam Safety Act. Hazards from potential failure of Hansen Dam are addressed above in Section 5.9.i. There are no water bodies near the school that could pose a flood hazard to the school site due to a seiche.
57 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2017, July 6. Flood Map Service Center. https://msc.fema.gov/portal. 58 California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES). 2016, February 23. DVD. Dam Inundation Maps. 59 US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2017, July 6. Dam Safety Program: Hansen Dam, located at http://www.spl.usace.army.mil/Media/Fact-Sheets/Article/477347/dam-safety-program/. 60 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2017, July 6. Flood Map Service Center.
Page 68 PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 5. Environmental Analysis
A tsunami is an ocean wave caused by a sudden displacement of the ocean floor, most often due to earthquakes. The school is at an elevation of about 25 feet above mean sea level and is 4.1 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean; it is not at risk of flooding due to tsunami.
A mudflow is a landslide composed of saturated rock debris and soil with a consistency of wet cement. There are no slopes on or near the school that are capable of generating a mudflow.
5.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. Webster ES is fenced and is not used as an access route between residential areas north, east, and south of the school. Thus, the proposed installation and use of portable buildings would not divide an established community, and no impact would occur. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
No Impact. The proposed temporary relocation of 3rd through 5th grade students from three other schools to Webster ES would accord with the General Plan land use designation for the campus, Institutions/Schools, and the zoning designation, I (Institutional). No impact would occur. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
No Impact. The school is not within an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or similar plan.61 No impact would occur.
5.11 MINERAL RESOURCES a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state?
No Impact. The school is not in an area where significant Portland cement-concrete aggregate resources are mapped as present by the California Geological Survey.62 The project site is developed as part of Webster ES and is surrounded by residential uses on three sides; thus it is not available for mining. The nearest active mine to the school mapped on the Mines Online map maintained by the California Office of Mine
61 US Geological Survey (USGS). 2015, November 30. Region 8 Habitat Conservation Plans (data layer in USGS National Map). https://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/?q=ags%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencebase.gov%2Farcgis%2Frest%2Fservices%2F Catalog%2F521fdafbe4b08e3fb9959e41%2FMapServer. 62 California Geological Survey (CGS). 2010. Update of Mineral Land Classification for Portland Cement Concrete-Grade Aggregate in the San Gabriel Valley Production-Consumption Region, Los Angeles County, California. Plate 1. San Gabriel Valley P-C Region Showing MRZ-2 Areas and Active Mine Operations. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sr/SR_209/Plate%201.pdf.
October 2017 Page 69 INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 5. Environmental Analysis
Reclamation is the Irwindale sand and gravel mine about 24 miles to the northeast.63 Project implementation would not cause a loss of availability of mineral resources valuable to the region, and no impact would occur. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
No Impact. The City of Long Beach General Plan identifies one major oil-producing area, the Wilmington Field, which is about 1.5 miles south of the school.64,65 The school is not in a mineral recovery site identified in the Long Beach General Plan, and project implementation would not cause a loss of availability of mineral resources. No impact would occur.
5.12 NOISE Noise is defined as unwanted sound and is known to have several adverse effects on people, including hearing loss, speech and sleep interference, physiological responses, and annoyance. Based on these known adverse effects of noise, federal, state, and city governments have established criteria to protect public health and safety and to prevent the disruption of certain human activities, such as communication and sleep. Additional information on noise and vibration fundamentals, existing regulations, and technical standards, project- specific background information are in Appendix B of this Initial Study.
The following are brief definitions of terminology used in this section:
. Sound. A disturbance created by a vibrating object, which, when transmitted by pressure waves through a medium such as air, is capable of being detected by a receiving mechanism, such as the human ear or a microphone.
. Noise. Sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or otherwise undesirable.
. Decibel (dB). A unitless measure of sound on a logarithmic scale.
. A-Weighted Decibel (dBA). An overall frequency-weighted sound level in decibels that approximates the frequency response of the human ear.
. Equivalent Continuous Noise Level (Leq). The mean of the noise level, energy averaged over the measurement period.
. Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period, with 5 dB added from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and 10 dB from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM.
63 Office of Mine Reclamation (OMR). 2017, July 7. Mines Online. http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mol/mol-app.html. 64 City of Long Beach. 1973, April 30. General Plan Conservation Element. http://www.lbds.info/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=4092. 65 Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR). 2017, July 7. DOGGR Wel Finder. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dog/Pages/WellFinder.aspx.
Page 70 PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 5. Environmental Analysis
Existing Noise Environment and Sensitive Receptors The nearest sensitive receptors to the proposed portable building locations would be the single-family homes approximately 280 feet to the northwest, beyond the powerline easement and single-family homes to the north. The nearest sensitive receptors to the proposed modifications to Netherly Avenue would be the condo complex directly to the east. The primary noise sources around the school would be the roadway noise along Santa Fe Avenue, residential operations (i.e. property maintenance, people talking), and to a lesser extent, roadway noise along 32nd Street, 34th Street, and other nearby residential roadways. In general, the noise environment at the project site is similar to a medium-density urban residential community. a) Result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Applicable Standards City of Long Beach Noise Element The noise element serves as a tool for local planners to use in achieving and maintaining compatible land use with environmental noise levels. The City’s noise element, adopted in 1975, includes an assessment of the existing community noise environment, including surveys of residents, and an action plan for achieving goals for the future noise environment. The noise element is designed to integrate noise considerations into land use planning to prevent noise/land use conflicts. The applicable Long Beach noise standards are implemented and enforced by the municipal code, as shown below.
Municipal Code Chapter 8.80 (Noise) of the Long Beach Municipal Code provides regulations to control unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise and vibration.66 Exterior and interior noise limits based on land use are shown in Table 7 and Table 8. Only the land use types associated with the proposed project are included in the tables below; detailed portions of the Long Beach Municipal Code are included in Appendix B.
Table 7 Exterior Noise Limits Allowable Exterior Noise Level (dBA) Receiving Land Use District Type of Land Use 7:00 AM–10:00 PM 10:00 PM–7:00 AM District One Residential 50 45 Source: Long Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 8.80 (Noise).
The following adjustments are applicable to the exterior standards in Table 7:
66 Long Beach, California, Municipal Code Chapter 8.80 (Ord. C-5371 § 1 (part), 1977: prior code § 4430)
October 2017 Page 71 INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 5. Environmental Analysis
If the noise consists entirely of impact noise, simple tone noise, speech, music, or any combination thereof, each of the noise levels shall be reduced by 5 dBA. Noise levels at residential properties may not exceed the standards:
for a cumulative period of more than thirty minutes in any hour; plus 5 dBA for a cumulative period of more than fifteen minutes in any hour; plus 10 dBA for a cumulative period of more than five minutes in any hour; plus 15 dBA for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour; or . plus 20 dBA for any period of time. If the ambient noise level exceeds any of the first four noise limit categories above, the cumulative period applicable to said category shall be increased to reflect said ambient noise level. If the ambient noise level exceeds the fifth noise limit category, the maximum allowable noise level under said category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level.
Table 8 Interior Noise Limits Allowable Interior Noise Level (dBA) Receiving Land Use District Type of Land Use 7:00 AM–10:00 PM 10:00 PM–7:00 AM All Residential 45 35 All School 45a N/A Source: Long Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 8.80 (Noise). a While school is in session.
The following adjustments are applicable to the interior standards in Table 8.
No person shall operate, or cause to be operated, any source of sound indoors at any location within the incorporated limits of the City or allow the creation of any indoor noise which causes the noise level when measured inside the receiving dwelling unit to exceed:
. The noise standard (above) for that land use district for a cumulative period of more than five minutes in any hour;
. The noise standard plus 5 dB for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour; or . The noise standard plus 10 dB or the maximum measured ambient, for any period of time. If the measured indoor ambient level exceeds that permissible within any of the first two noise limit categories in this section, the allowable noise exposure standard shall be increased in five decibel (5 dB) increments in each category as appropriate to reflect the indoor ambient noise level. In the event the indoor ambient noise level exceeds the third noise limit category, the maximum allowable indoor noise level under said category shall be increased to reflect the maximum indoor ambient noise level.
Additionally, Table 9 shows adjustments to be made to the noise limits based on background noise levels.
Page 72 PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 5. Environmental Analysis
Table 9 Background Noise Correction Difference between Total Noise and Background Noise Alone (dB) Amount to Be Subtracted from [Total Measured Noise Level]a (dB) 6–8 1 9–10 0.5 Source: Long Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 8.80 (Noise). a Text in brackets replaces online code for clarity.
In addition, Section 8.80.130 (Disturbing Noises Prohibited) of the municipal code states that it is unlawful to make any loud, unnecessary, and unusual noise that disturbs the peace or quiet or causes discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person, regardless of whether the noise level exceeds the standards specified above.
Municipal Code Section 8.80.202 contains standards and limits that deal with construction noise. Details of these criteria and the related impacts are discussed below in impact item d.
Impact Analysis The proposed project consists of the installation and use of interim school housing (temporary portable buildings) and modifications to the parking and circulation along Netherly Avenue, and a new drop-off/pick- up zone. The temporary portable buildings are required to house students during modernization of four LBUSD schools over the next four years.
Even though project-related operations are technically temporary, due to the total project duration (four years), project-related operations are treated as a long-term noise impact.
Noise impacts could result from increases in project-generated traffic, increases in outdoor activities, and from stationary noise sources such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units and other mechanical equipment. The following discusses noise increases at sensitive receptors from project-related traffic and operations sources.
Operational Noise Impacts Noise can be broken down into three categories. The first is “audible”, which refer to increases in noise level that are perceptible to humans. Audible increases in general community noise levels generally refer to a change of 3 dB or more since this level has been found to be the threshold of perceptibility in exterior environments. The second category, “potentially audible”, refers to a change in noise level between 1 and 3 dB. The last category includes changes in noise level of less than 1 dB that are typically “inaudible” to the human ear except under quiet conditions in controlled environments. Only “audible” changes in noise levels at sensitive receptor locations are considered a potential impact. (Note that a doubling of traffic flows [i.e., 10,000 vehicles per day to 20,000 per day] would be needed to create a 3 dB increase in traffic-generated noise levels.)
A significant stationary-source noise impact would occur if the activities or equipment at the school produce noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors in excess of local standards. The Webster ES campus currently has an enrollment of 582 students. Other LBUSD schools would use the portable buildings each year; therefore
October 2017 Page 73 INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 5. Environmental Analysis
increasing the total number of students at Webster ES over 3 years of school modernization period (one year would not see an increase).
Project-Related Stationary Noise The portable buildings are expected to increase the noise environment at the school. The interim housing facilities would introduce additional mechanical equipment noise to the area, and beginning in 2017 when they are operational.
Mechanical Equipment Noise The modernization of Webster ES would include the installation of a new HVAC system as well as other minor mechanical equipment upgrades. This equipment is expected to be more efficient than the equipment currently used at the school, and would not result in noise increases. There would be 12 portables along the boundary with the power line easement and the remaining six portables will be placed toward the center of the campus (near Classroom Building ‘C’). These inner-campus portable buildings would not be expected to emit substantial sound energy into the adjacent community due the sound shielded of school buildings.
Because of clear line of sight, the sensitive receptors, for portable building HVAC noise at the edge of the campus, would be the homes to the northwest, beyond the powerline easement. The homes at the terminus of 34th street would also close to the portable buildings; however, these homes would only have a line of sight to one portable building, as opposed to all 12. Noise from the portable building HVAC systems may potentially be audible at homes along Harbor Street. Assuming a sound rating of 80 dBA Leq at 3 feet for each of the 12 HVAC units, as a worst case, the simultaneous operation of all 12 HVAC units would result in an aggregate noise level of approximately 49 dBA at the fence line of any of these homes. This estimate does not exceed the municipal code noise level limit of 50 dBA or any of the adjusted noise level limits; therefore, mechanical equipment noise would be less than significant.
Student Operational Noise An increased number of students on campus would increase the noise. The existing number of students was compared with the future number of students to determine the decibel increase over existing conditions.67 To simplify this analysis, it was assumed that the sound power of one student is proportional to the sound power of 100 students (see Table 10).
Table 10 Operational Noise Increases Decibel Increase above Existing Conditions Interim Year School Total Number of Students (582 students) (dB) 2018–2019 Garfield ES 928 2.0 dBa 2019–2020 Webster ES 582 0 dB 2020–2021 Muir K-8 999 2.4 dB 2021–2022 Birney ES 889 1.8 dB Note: dB increase = 10*LOG (future/existing) a e.g. 10*LOG(928/582)= 2.0 dB
67 Basic Methodology gathered from: Harris, Cyril M. Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control, Third Edition. Acoustical Society of America. Woodbury, NY. 1998.
Page 74 PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 5. Environmental Analysis
As shown in Table 10, operational noise increases due to an increased number of students would not exceed 3 dB threshold, and therefore would not result in any audible increases to the noise environment. Increases in student-generated noise would be less than significant.
Project-Related Roadway Noise For the 2019-2020 school year, Webster ES 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade students would attend classes in the portable buildings while their classrooms are being modernized; therefore, the 2019-2020 school year would not experience traffic increases over existing conditions. For the 2018-2019 and 2021-2022 school years, 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade students from Garfield ES and Birney ES would attend classes in the portable; no change in existing traffic flow at Webster would occur because (1) student arrival and dismissal times would not overlap, (2) Garfield ES (346 third- through fifth-grade students) and Birney ES (307 third- through fifth-grade students) would each generate less traffic than Webster ES (total 582 K-5 students) during student drop-off and pick-up, and (3) most Garfield ES and Birney ES students would arrive by school bus.
With the same arrival and dismissal times, traffic from Muir K-8 would overlap with traffic from Webster ES and an increase of 2.8 dB would occur. A noise level increase of 3 dB or more is considered a potentially significant impact. Webster ES site access roads would experience negligible increases in noise from the additional traffic. The proposed project would not result in audible increases in traffic-related noise along the surrounding roadways. Exposure of persons to noise levels in excess of established thresholds from project- related roadway noise would be less than significant.
b) Result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project includes the installation of 18 temporary portable buildings and modifications to the parking and circulation along Netherly Avenue. Operation of the temporary guest school does not include equipment that has the potential to generate groundborne vibration.
Vibration Standards According to Section 8.80.200 of the Long Beach Municipal Code (Noise Disturbances, Acts Specified), it is illegal to operate any device that creates vibration above the vibration perception threshold of an individual at the property boundary of the source if on private property, or at 150 feet from the source in a public space. For the purposes of this section, “vibration perception threshold” means the minimum ground- or structure- borne vibrational motion necessary to cause a normal person to be aware of the vibration.
This analysis uses the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment for vibration velocity reference levels and vibration velocity perception threshold.68 The Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment states that a vibration velocity level of 78 VdB69 is the threshold for a “barely feelable vibration,” and this level is used as the threshold for a residential daytime receptor.
68 Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006, May. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. U.S. Department of Transportation (DoT). FTA-VA-90-1003-06. 69 Root-Mean-Squared (RMS) Velocity in decibels (VdB) referenced at 1 microinch per second.
October 2017 Page 75 INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 5. Environmental Analysis
Impact Analysis Construction activities can generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction procedures, the equipment used, and the proximity to vibration-sensitive uses. Operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in amplitude with distance from the source. The effect on buildings near a construction site varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and receptor building construction. The generation of vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. Ground vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that can damage structures, but can reach perceptible levels at buildings close to a construction site. Rock blasting and impact pile driving generate the highest levels of vibration. However, construction for this project would not require impact pile driving, blasting, or other vibration-intensive equipment such as vibratory rollers or clam shovels.
Vibration is typically noticed nearby when objects in a building generate noise from rattling windows or picture frames. It is typically not perceptible outdoors, and therefore impacts are based on the distance to the nearest building70. As shown in Table 11, project-related construction activities are not expected to generate vibration levels that would exceed the FTA’s vibration perception threshold of 78 VdB. Therefore, groundborne vibration impacts related to project construction would be less than significant
Table 11 Construction-Related Vibration Vibration Level (VdB) Vibration-Sensitive Use At 25 Feet from Source (reference) At 20 Feet from Source (property line) Asphalt Slurrya 58 61 Source: Vibration reference levels- Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006, May. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. U.S. Department of Transportation (DoT). FTA-VA-90-1003-06. Notes: Root-Mean-Squared (RMS) vibration velocity level (VdB) referenced 1 microinch/second. Distances are from the center of the construction phase area to the nearest home to the south. a vibration levels for asphalt slurry is similar to FTA rated small bulldozer
c) Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Less Than Significant Impact. As presented in impact item a, above, project-generated operational noise from traffic, stationary noise sources (e.g., mechanical systems), and operational activities would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels. Therefore, these ongoing activities would generate less-than-significant noise impacts.
70 Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006, May. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. U.S. Department of Transportation (DoT). FTA-VA-90-1003-06.
Page 76 PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 5. Environmental Analysis
d) Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project includes the installation of eighteen interim housing units, and modifications to the parking and circulation along Netherly Avenue. For this construction noise analysis, construction activities were split into two groups based on their distance to the nearest receptors. The construction phases and the dates of their durations are:
. Portables Installation: October to December 2017. Site preparation, utility trenching, portable installation, finishing.
. Modifications to Netherly Avenue: November to December 2017. Asphalt finishing and striping for the street, and striping for new drop-off/pick-up loop driveway and parking stalls.
Noise generated during construction is based on the type of equipment used, the location of the equipment relative to sensitive receptors, and the timing and duration of the noise-generating activities.
Construction Noise Standards Under Section 8.80.202 (Construction Activity, Noise Regulations), the City restricts construction activities that “produce loud or unusual noise which annoys or disturbs a reasonable person of normal sensitivity” to the following hours: . Monday through Friday (including national holidays): 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM. . Saturday: 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM. . Construction is prohibited on Sundays unless a permit has been issued. Impact Analysis Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during construction: (1) mobile-source noise from transport of workers, material deliveries, and debris and soil haul and (2) stationary-source noise from use of construction equipment. Existing uses surrounding the school would be exposed to some construction noise.
Construction Vehicles Noise Considering the small scale of the construction activities associated with the project, trucks, material delivery vehicles and worker trips would not to result in significant increases in the total noise environment around the school.
Individual construction vehicle pass-bys may create momentary noise levels of up to approximately 85 dBA (Lmax) at 50 feet from the vehicle, but these occurrences—although potentially audible for a few seconds— would generally be infrequent. Due to the infrequency of events, their relatively short-lived durations, and their commonality with existing truck pass-bys, construction vehicle movement noise would be less than significant.
October 2017 Page 77 INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 5. Environmental Analysis
Construction Equipment Noise Each stage of construction involves the use of different kinds of construction equipment/processes depending on the work, and therefore has its own distinct noise characteristics. The primary noise concerns for project construction would result from the modification to Netherly Avenue, due to its proximity to residential receptors. Short-term noise can be also associated with site preparation, utility trenching, and placement of portable buildings.
Noise attenuation due to distance, the number and type of equipment, and the load and power requirements to accomplish tasks at each construction phase would result in different construction-related noise levels at any given receptor. Distances to the nearest receptor buildings are measured from the applicable construction phase area to the nearest residential receptor. Table 12 lists construction noise levels per construction phase as measured to the nearest single-family homes.
As a worst-case scenario, this analysis considers projected noise levels from the simultaneous use of all construction equipment at spatially averaged distances (i.e., from the center of the applicable construction phase area) to the nearest residential receptor.
Using information provided by the LBUSD and the methodologies and inputs employed in the air quality assessment, the expected construction equipment mix was estimated and categorized by construction activity. The installation of the portables is expected to last approximately three months, and the modifications to Netherly Avenue is expected to last approximately one month. The associated, aggregate sound levels for both periods of construction—grouped by construction activity—are summarized in Table 12.
Table 12 Project-Related Construction Noise Levels Receiver Distance (feet) Sound Level per Construction Phase, dBA Leq Modifications to Netherly Avenue and north parking Receiver Distance (feet) Asphalt Finishing Asphalt Striping - - Condo Complex to East 60 82 75 - - Single-Family Homes to the North 475 64 57 - - Single-Family Homes to the South 475 64 57 - - Portable Building Installation Portable Architectural Receiver Distance (feet) Site Preparation Utility Trenching Installation Finishing Single-Family Homes to the Northwest 280 68 60 58 62 Single-Family Homes to the Northeast 420 65 56 54 59 Note: Calculations performed with the FHWA’s RCNM software and included in Appendix B. Distances are from the center of the applicable construction phase area to the nearest residences.
The nearest residential receptors are approximately 60 feet to the east of the proposed modifications to Netherly Avenue. At this distance, composite construction noise would be reduced to a conservatively estimated level of approximately 82 dBA Leq (due to distance attenuation alone) during the loudest period of construction. Noise levels from construction activities would result in lower noise levels at more distant
Page 78 PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 5. Environmental Analysis
receptors (as compared to these nearest receptors) due to increasing attenuation with increasing distances away from the sources.
Since construction activities would be limited to relatively small- to medium-sized equipment (i.e., bulldozers, grading tractors, loaders, back hoes, pavers, and a crane), would take place during the daytime hours when many people would be out of their houses, and would conform to the time-of-day restrictions of the Long Beach Municipal Code, construction noise impacts would be less than significant.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public-use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact. The nearest public-use airport to the project site is the Long Beach Airport located approximately 3 miles from the project site.71 While operations at these private aircraft facilities may, at times, be audible at the site, the relatively limited and sporadic use of these airports for corporate travel or other limited uses, coupled with the distances between them and the project site, would result in negligible amounts of community noise at the campus. As such, development of the project would not expose people onsite to excessive noise levels from aircraft approaching or departing from Long Beach Airport and no impact would occur.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact. The nearest heliport or other private air strips to the project site is the Long Beach Memorial Medical Center Heliport, located approximately 1.8 miles to the west of the project site.72 At this distance, aircraft noise from the nearest private heliport would result in negligible amounts of community noise at the project site. Project development would not expose people onsite to excessive heliport- or airstrip-related noise levels. Therefore, no impact would occur.
5.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
No Impact. Project implementation would not induce substantial growth. The project involves temporary relocation of some students from three other schools to Webster Elementary School during needed modernizations of those schools. The project would not increase total enrollment or capacity at the four schools; the portable buildings would be removed after the four-year modernization period. Webster Elementary School is already served by utility infrastructure, and the project does not propose extension of infrastructure to unserved areas. No impact would occur.
71 Airnav, LLC. 2017. Airport Information. http://www.airnav.com/airports. 72 Airnav, LLC. 2017. Airport Information. http://www.airnav.com/airports.
October 2017 Page 79 INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 5. Environmental Analysis
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. There is no housing onsite, and no impact would occur.
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. There are no residents onsite, and no impact would occur. 5.14 PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Long Beach Fire Department provides fire protection and emergency medical services to the City. The two nearest fire stations to Webster ES are Station 13 at 2475 Adriatic Avenue, about one mile to the south, and Station 9 at 3917 Long Beach Boulevard about 1.7 miles to the northeast. Project implementation would not increase total demands for fire protection or emergency medical services at the four affected schools. Some students from the three home schools would be temporarily relocated to Webster Elementary School. The project would not require construction of new or expanded fire stations, and impacts would be less than significant.
b) Police protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Long Beach Police Department provides police protection to the City. The nearest police station to the school is the West Division Station at 1835 Santa Fe Avenue about 1.7 miles to the south. Project implementation would not increase total demands for police protection at the four affected schools. Some students from the three home schools would be temporarily relocated to Webster Elementary School. The project would not require construction of new or expanded fire stations, and impacts would be less than significant.
c) Schools?
No Impact. The project would involve modernizations to all four affected schools and would have a beneficial effect on school facilities. No adverse impact would occur.
d) Parks?
No Impact. There are athletic and play facilities at Webster Elementary School. The proposed portable buildings would be installed on several hardcourts, and the project would restripe hardcourts elsewhere on the
Page 80 PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 5. Environmental Analysis
campus. The project would not require students from any of the affected schools to use off-campus recreational facilities, and no impact would occur. e) Other public facilities?
No Impact. Webster Elementary School has a library; project implementation would not require students from any of the affected schools to use off-campus libraries, and no impact would occur.
5.15 RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
No Impact. Project implementation would not increase use of off-campus recreational facilities or require construction of such facilities, and no impact would occur. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
No Impact. The project does not propose development of recreational facilities and would not require construction of new or expanded facilities; no impact would occur.
5.16 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Definition of Level of Service Roadway capacity is generally limited by the ability to move vehicles through intersections. A level of service (LOS) is a standard performance measurement to describe the operating characteristics of a street system in terms of the level of congestion or delay experienced by motorists. Service levels range from A through F, which relate to traffic conditions from best (uncongested, free-flowing conditions) to worst (total breakdown with stop-and-go operation). LOS is calculated for weekday traffic peak hours. The peak hours selected for analysis are the highest volumes that occur in four consecutive 15-minute periods from 7:00 to 9:00 AM and from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM on weekdays.
October 2017 Page 81 INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 5. Environmental Analysis
Intersection LOS There are two study intersections, one signalized and one unsignalized. In compliance with City of Long Beach methodologies to evaluate traffic impacts, the LOS analysis for studying signalized intersections was conducted by using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology, and the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology was utilized to evaluate unsignalized intersections.73
The ICU methodology is used to evaluate signalized intersections based on the hourly traffic volumes by lane, the approach lane configuration, and the signal phasing. The ICU value is essentially a ratio of traffic volume to the capacity of the intersection, commonly referred as V/C ratio. The LOS corresponds to the ICU value, which is the V/C ratio.
The 2010 Highway Capacity Manual includes a methodology to calculate LOS in terms of control delay (in seconds per vehicle).74 The intersection LOS analysis is based on the traffic volumes observed during peak- hour conditions. Per the HCM methodology, overall average intersection delay at all-way-stop intersections was calculated, and the worst-case approach delay was calculated at cross-street-stop intersections. The LOS corresponds to the delay calculated.
Table 13 describes the level of service concept and the operating conditions expected under each level of service for signalized and unsignalized intersections.
Table 13 Intersection Level of Service Descriptions ICU Method HCM Method LOS Description (V/C Ratio) (Delay) Excellent operation. All approaches to the intersection appear quite open, turning movements are easily made, and nearly all drivers find A 0.00 to 0.60 0 to 10.00 freedom of operation.
Very good operation. Many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within platoons of vehicles. This represents stable flow. An approach B to an intersection may occasionally be fully utilized and traffic queues 0.60 to 0.70 10.01 to 15.00 start to form.
Good operation. Occasionally drivers may have to wait more than 60 seconds, and back-ups may develop behind turning vehicles. Most C 0.70 to 0.80 15.01 to 25.00 drivers feel somewhat restricted.
Fair operation. Cars are sometimes required to wait more than 60 seconds during short peaks. There are no longstanding traffic D 0.80 to 0.90 25.01 to 35.00 queues.
73 City of Long Beach. 2013. City of Long Beach General Plan Mobility Element. http://www.lbds.info/mobility_element/. 74 Transportation Research Board. 2010. Highway Capacity Manual. Available at: http://hcm.trb.org/.
Page 82 PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 5. Environmental Analysis
Table 13 Intersection Level of Service Descriptions ICU Method HCM Method LOS Description (V/C Ratio) (Delay) Poor operation. Some longstanding vehicular queues develop on E critical approaches to intersections. Delays may be up to several 0.90 to 1.00 35.01 to 50.00 minutes. Forced flow. Represents jammed conditions. Back-ups from locations downstream or on the cross street may restrict or prevent movement F > 1.00 50.01 and up of vehicles out of the intersection approach lanes; therefore, volumes carried are not predictable. Potential for stop-and-go-type traffic flow. Source: City of Long Beach. 2013. City of Long Beach General Plan Mobility Element. http://www.lbds.info/mobility_element/. Notes: V/C = volume per capacity ratio Delay is in vehicles per second.
Existing Conditions Roadways Regional access to the school is provided by Santa Fe Avenue, where most vehicles turn onto 34th Street to access Netherly Avenue. During traffic observations, it was noted that when leaving the campus, vehicles typically use 32nd Way back onto Santa Fe Avenue.
. Interstate 405 is the main east-west freeway in Long Beach. It is 10 lanes and is approximately 0.7 mile north of the school campus.
. Santa Fe Avenue is a north-south local street classified as a major avenue in the City’s Mobility Element.75 It has four lanes in the vicinity of the school. It has a speed limit of 35 mph, and street parking is permitted on both sides in the vicinity of the school.
. Netherly Avenue is a north-south local street with two lanes that borders the school to the east. On the east side of the street, approximately 250 feet of the curb is painted green with a limit of 30 minutes to facilitate student pick-up and drop-off. On the west side of the street, a portion of the curb about 70 feet long is reserved for student drop-off, delineated with white paint; about 50 feet of green painted curb is designated as a 30-minute parking zone.
. 34th Street is an east-west local street with two lanes that borders the school to the north. Curbside parking is allowed on both sides of the street.
. 32nd Way is a short east-west access street with two lanes that terminates at Santa Fe Avenue and borders the school to the south. Curbside parking is permitted on both sides of the street.
75 City of Long Beach. 2013. City of Long Beach General Plan Mobility Element. Available at: http://www.lbds.info/mobility_element/.
October 2017 Page 83 INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 5. Environmental Analysis
Intersections The intersection of 34th Street and Netherly Avenue is controlled by two-way stop signs, with a crosswalk on the south side. The intersection of 32nd Way and Netherly Avenue is controlled by all-way stop signs and has a crosswalk on the north side.
Sidewalks and Bicycle Facilities There are sidewalks along both sides of Netherly Avenue, 34th Street, and 32nd Way. There are no off-street bicycle paths or on-street bicycle lanes in the vicinity of the school. The nearest bicycle facility to the school is the Los Angeles River Bike Trail atop the east bank of the Los Angeles River about 0.7 mile to the east.76
Public Transit The nearest public transit routes to the school are Long Beach Transit routes 191 and 192, which operate on Santa Fe Avenue one block east of the school. The two routes each extend southwest-northeast between Long Beach and the City of Cerritos; weekday peak hour frequencies are 30 minutes each.
Student Drop-off and Parking A traffic survey was conducted on Wednesday June 14, 2017. Regional access to the school is provided via Santa Fe Avenue, from which vehicles would turn right onto 34th Street to access Netherly Avenue, or via 32nd Way heading north on Netherly Avenue. The District encourages parents to enter Netherly Avenue from 34th Street and leave from 32nd Way and Santa Fe Avenue.
Despite instructions on the school website to enter from 34th Street, it was observed that traffic on Netherly Avenue enters from 34th and 32nd; many drivers double-parked their car to walk students to and from the school. A crossing guard was stationed at the yellow painted crosswalk in front of the main entrance for about 30 minutes during pick-up.
Curbside parking is allowed on both sides of Netherly Avenue and is limited to 30 minutes along most curbs (see Figure 7, Existing Parking Restrictions). Approximately 96 staff parking spaces are provided at two parking lots on the school campus with access to Netherly Avenue.
Acceptable LOS and Thresholds of Significance Based on City of Long Beach guidelines, LOS A through D represent acceptable operating conditions, while LOS E and F represent unacceptable traffic conditions. An impact is considered significant when the resulting LOS with the project traffic is E or F and project-related traffic contributes a V/C of 0.020 or more to the critical movements. The impact at an unsignalized intersection would be deemed significant if the project would result in an increase in traffic delay (seconds per vehicle) of 2 percent or greater at an intersection that is projected to operate at LOS E or F.
76 City of Long Beach. 2016, June 23. City of Long Beach Bike Map. http://www.longbeach.gov/pw/media- library/documents/resources/general/maps-and-gis/city-of-long-beach-bikeway-facilities/.
Page 84 PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 5. Environmental Analysis
Existing Traffic Conditions The general approach for conducting traffic impact analyses is to evaluate weekday peak-hour traffic during the commuter peak traffic conditions, which generally occurs from 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM. Schools generate most trips during the student drop-off times in the morning and student pick-up times in the midafternoon; student pick-up occurs earlier than the commuter peak hour traffic. Because the peak traffic in the afternoon is earlier than for general traffic in the area, this study focuses on the pick-up period from 1:00 to 3:00 PM. Traffic counts at the intersection of 34th Street at Santa Fe Avenue between the hours of 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM and between 1:00 PM and 3:00 PM were obtained on Tuesday, June 13, 2017, as well as 24-hour roadway volume counts on 32nd Way.
Table 14 summarizes the intersection LOS for existing conditions. The signalized intersection of 34th Street at Santa Fe Avenue currently operates at acceptable LOS A. The unsignalized intersection of 32nd Way at Santa Fe Avenue has its eastbound approach intersecting Santa Fe Avenue operating at LOS F in the AM peak and LOS E in the PM peak. The delays at the eastbound approach at 32nd Way occur because vehicles need to find gaps in the north-south flow on Santa Fe Avenue to make a right or left turn into Santa Fe Avenue, as shown in Table 15. However, thru traffic on Santa Fe Avenue does not experience delays at this intersection because it is free-flow in the north-south direction—the stop is on the eastbound approach.
Table 14 Existing Traffic Conditions Student Drop-off Student Pick-up (AM Peak Hour) (Midafternoon) Intersection Traffic Control V/C or Delay LOS V/C or Delay LOS Santa Fe Avenue at Signalized 0.394 A 0.436 A 34th Street Santa Fe Avenue at Cross-Street 46.7 E 183.9 F 32nd Way stop Notes: To determine level of service for signalized intersections, the ICU metric is used in terms of volume per capacity. For unsignalized intersections, delay in seconds per vehicle is used. LOS worksheets for existing conditions are in Appendix C.
Traffic Conditions with Street Improvements Only A new student loading area would be provided on the northern portion of the campus to allow parents to drop off and pick up students without parking. In this area vehicles would be allowed to stop to unload and load students without leaving their cars. The student loading loop driveway would be one way starting at the terminus of 34th Street, ending approximately 100 feet to the south on Netherly Avenue. Vehicles leaving the student loading loop would be allowed to either turn right to proceed south on Netherly Avenue, or turn left to head north towards 34th Street.
Netherly Avenue would be converted from its current two-way configuration to one-way southbound-only traffic flow from the student loading loop driveway to 32nd Way. The project would also eliminate most of the existing parallel parking on both sides of Netherly Avenue. The street would be slurry coated, and new striping, signage, and delineators would be installed for the bus loading zones. The west side of the street
October 2017 Page 85 INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 5. Environmental Analysis
would be designated for student drop-off for cars and buses. The east side would be restriped to accommodate diagonal parking, except for the areas across the bus loading zone, which would continue to have parallel curbside parking. Students from Garfield ES, Muir K-8, and Birney ES would access the portables from Netherly Avenue through the north parking lot only; they would not walk through the Webster ES campus. Webster ES students would use the main front entrance of the school.
An analysis of traffic circulation changes related to the reconfiguration of Netherly Avenue was performed. All school-related traffic would enter Netherly Avenue from 34th Street, with the exception of staff accessing the south parking lot off 32nd Way. A review of the existing turning movement volumes shows that during student drop-off and pick-up approximately 60 percent of trips approach the school from the north and 40 percent from the south of the school via Santa Fe Avenue. This information was used to estimate the traffic patterns that would change as a result of the modified access, with most of Netherly Avenue restricted to a one-way direction. Table 15 shows the intersection LOS with the street improvements.
Table 15 Existing Traffic with Street Improvements
AM Drop-off (Peak Hour) PM Pick-up V/C or Average Delay V/C or Average Delay Intersection Scenario per Vehicle (sec) LOS per Vehicle (sec) LOS Existing 0.394 A 0.436 A Santa Fe Avenue at 34th Street w/ reconfiguration 0.416 A 0.480 A
Existing 46.5 E 183.9 F Santa Fe Avenue at 32nd Way w/ reconfiguration 33.5 D 89.0 F
Notes: To determine level of service for signalized intersections, the ICU metric is used in terms of volume per capacity. For unsignalized intersections, delay in seconds per vehicle is used. Intersection LOS calculation worksheets included in Appendix C.
The changes in traffic patterns and turn movement volumes as a result of the reconfigured street would improve operations on 32nd Way because less traffic would enter from Santa Fe Avenue. The signalized intersection of Santa Fe Avenue at 34th Street would continue to operate at LOS A. In summary, the reconfiguration of the Netherly Avenue and the existing Webster ES school population would not result in a significant impact at any intersections.
Traffic Conditions with Interim Housing The project consists of the installation and use of interim housing (temporary portable buildings) at Webster ES. The temporary portable buildings are required to house students during modernization of four schools over the next four years. In addition to accommodating housing for Webster ES students while the school is undergoing renovations, interim housing at Webster ES would be provided for students in grades 3, 4, and 5 at Garfield ES, Muir K-8, and Birney ES for about one year while each campus is undergoing modernizations. Table 1, Modernization Schedule, in Section 3.1.4 shows the number of students, staff, busing, and bell hours for each school.
Page 86 PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 5. Environmental Analysis
For Garfield ES and Birney ES, school buses would pick up students at their home school at the normal start time and drop them off at Webster ES. At the end of the day (normal dismissal time for the home school) the students would board the bus and be taken back to the home school for pick-up by parents. No busing would be provided for Muir K-8. Students that arrive at Muir K-8 would use a “walking school bus”77 to walk the 0.5 mile to Webster ES. It is anticipated that some parents would choose to drive their children to and from Webster ES directly, as opposed to dropping them off at their home school. Most of the drop-off and pick-up for Garfield ES, Muir K-8, and Birney ES students would occur along the loading loop driveway and the north end of Netherly Avenue closest to the portable buildings. Webster students would enter the school from the front main entrance.
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual would normally be used to determine trip rates for the school in the AM and PM periods. However, since the District would be busing or walking the majority of the students from other schools, the ITE elementary school rates would not provide a good estimate for vehicular trips related to the project. The numbers of private auto trips and bus trips for each school that would be temporarily housed at Webster ES were calculated based on the student location map for each school, a review of the circulation system, and the distance to drive a student to their home school versus driving them directly to Webster. The student location maps and areas used to calculate the percentage of trip to each home school and to Webster ES are in Appendix C.
The total number of trips are from private automobiles and a maximum of five school buses for Garfield ES. Table 16 shows the trip generation associated with each school during AM peak hour, PM student dismissal, and daily.
Table 16 Vehicular Trips from Interim Student Housing Trip Generation Bell Overlap AM Peak Hour PM Pick Up Trip Generation w/WES Daily In Out Total In Out Total Garfield Elementary School No 309 64 39 103 39 39 78
Muir Elementary School Yes 480 95 65 160 65 65 130
Birney Elementary School No 300 61 39 100 39 39 78
The highest number of trips would occur during Muir K-8 attendance, which would result in 480 additional daily vehicle trips, 160 trips in the AM peak hour, and 130 trips in the PM peak hour. The lowest number of trips would occur with Birney ES—300 daily trips, 100 in the AM peak hour, and 78 in the PM peak hour. The difference in the number of trips for each school is due to the number of students that would be housed from each school and the location of each school.
The addition of Garfield ES and Birney ES students would not impact the existing traffic flow at Webster. This is because (1) student arrival and dismissal times would not overlap, (2) Garfield ES (346 third- through
77 A walking school bus is a group of children walking to school with one or more adults. There would be a well-planned walking route with meeting point at Muir K-8, a timetable, and a regularly rotated schedule of trained volunteers.
October 2017 Page 87 INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 5. Environmental Analysis
fifth-grade students) and Birney ES (307 third- through fifth-grade students) would each generate less traffic than Webster ES (total 582 K-5 students) during student drop-off and pick-up, and (3) most Garfield ES and Birney ES students would arrive by school bus.
With the same arrival and dismissal times, traffic from Muir K-8 would overlap with traffic from Webster ES. Therefore, this analysis evaluated traffic impacts with the reconfiguration of Netherly Avenue in conjunction with overlapping traffic. Table 17 shows the AM peak hour traffic volumes on the roadway segments adjacent to the school that would experience the greatest increases in traffic.
Table 17 AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Roadway Segment Existing Conditions With Muir K-8
Santa Fe Avenue north of 34th Street 1,724 1,820
Santa Fe Avenue south of 34th Street 1,604 1,687
Santa Fe Avenue south of 32nd Way 1,700 1,745
34th Street west of Santa Fe Avenue 291 356
The existing traffic volumes in the AM peak hour are highest at Santa Fe Avenue north of 34th Street. With additional traffic related to temporary housing of grades 3, 4, and 5 from Muir K-8, the traffic volume at that segment would increase by up to 96 vehicles; the street network has sufficient capacity to accommodate these volumes. The traffic volumes during the afternoon student dismissal are less than the volumes at AM peak hour, because student pick-up occurs before the commute peak hour traffic
Table 18 shows the projected traffic conditions with school improvements at the two study intersections with the student loading area at the north of the school with and without the added trips from Muir.
The intersection of 34th Street at Santa Fe Avenue would continue to operate at acceptable LOS A in both scenarios. The intersection of 32nd Way at Santa Fe Avenue worsens from LOS D (AM) and LOS F (PM) to LOS F in both the AM and PM with added traffic from Muir ES. The increase in delay would be up to 90.2 seconds per vehicle at this intersection.
Page 88 PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 5. Environmental Analysis
Table 18 Traffic Conditions Without and With Interim Housing AM Drop-off (Peak Hour) PM Pick-up V/C or Average Delay V/C or Average Delay Intersection Scenario per Vehicle (sec) LOS per Vehicle (sec) LOS Existing 0.394 A 0.436 A With Netherly Ave. Santa Fe Avenue reconfiguration only 0.416 A 0.480 A at 34th Street With Netherly Ave. reconfiguration and Muir K-8 0.470 A 0.529 A Existing 46.5 E 183.9 F With Netherly Ave. Santa Fe Avenue reconfiguration only 33.5 D 89.0 F at 32nd Way With Netherly Ave. reconfiguration and Muir K-8 54.8 F 179.2 F
Note: Table shows traffic conditions with Netherly Avenue improvements. Intersection LOS calculation worksheets included in Appendix C.
Traffic on Santa Fe Avenue would not be affected. The majority of traffic that would be affected by the queues and delays would be school traffic. However, there is a 2-story, 6-unit apartment that has a driveway on 32nd Way, and a large condominium complex that fronts on Santa Fe Avenue and has driveways for the carports on W 34th Street and W 32nd Way.
Drivers at the condos can use W 34th Street during student drop-off and pick-up instead of 32nd Way. Because the increase in queues and delays would affect primarily school traffic during one school calendar year (Muir K-8 overlaps WES bell schedule) and the peak school traffic would occur for a short period of time (approximately 15 minutes during student drop-off and pick-up), traffic impacts are considered less than significant.
Construction Traffic The project would involve the installation of portables, utility trenching, and restriping of hardcourts and Netherly Avenue. The installation of the interim housing would begin October 2017 and end in December 2017. All construction equipment staging and worker parking would be along the northwest edge of the campus away from classrooms. Construction workers typically arrive at construction sites around 7:00 AM, prior to student drop-off hours, and depart after student dismissal hours after 3:00 PM. Therefore, there would be minimal overlap between construction-related trips and traffic related to student drop-off and pick- up. A total of approximately 25 trucks would be required for delivery of the portables in 2017 and pick-up and removal in 2022. The increase in truck trips and traffic related to construction workers and vendors to the circulation network during the peak hours would be negligible. Given the relatively small number of truck trips, which would be spread throughout the day, traffic impacts related to construction activities would be less than significant.
October 2017 Page 89 INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 5. Environmental Analysis
Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? No Impact. The Congestion Management Program (CMP) was created statewide because of Proposition 111 and is implemented locally by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro).78 The CMP for Los Angeles County requires that the traffic impact of individual development projects of potentially regional significance be analyzed. A specific system of arterial roadways plus all freeways comprise the CMP system. Per CMP Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, a traffic impact analysis is conducted where:
. At CMP arterial monitoring intersections, including freeway on-ramps or off-ramps, where a project will add 50 or more vehicle trips during either AM or PM weekday peak hours.
. At CMP mainline freeway-monitoring locations, where a project will add 150 or more trips, in either direction, during the either the AM or PM weekday peak hours.
The nearest CMP arterial monitoring locations are Interstate 405 and State Route 1 (Pacific Coast Highway), which are north and south of the school. Changes in traffic patterns from the project would occur in the immediate vicinity by Santa Fe Avenue, Netherly Avenue, 34th Street and 32nd Way. In addition, the three other schools are located between CMP monitoring stations; therefore, any changes in traffic patterns would not affect CMP facilities. b) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
No Impact. The project would not change air traffic patterns since the school is not within the immediate vicinity of an airport. The closest public airport is Long Beach Airport, at 4100 Donald Douglas Drive in Long Beach, approximately three miles to the east of the school. The closest nonpublic landing strip is Los Alamitos Army Airfield approximately nine miles to the southeast of the school. There is one heliport, the Kilroy AC8-Long Beach Heliport, approximately four miles northwest of the school. No impact to existing air traffic patterns or levels would result from the project. c) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Less Than Significant Impact. The traffic levels, pedestrian activity, and vehicular turning movements in the vicinity of the school would increase. As part of the project Netherly Avenue would be reconfigured for one-way traffic flow along most of the street. Changes in parking and a new loading loop driveway would be added. Netherly Avenue would have an increase in cars, buses and pedestrians during drop-off/pick-up for Webster ES and Muir K-8 at the same time.
78 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. 2010. Congestion Management Program. Available at: https://www.metro.net/projects/congestion_mgmt_pgm/projects_programs_cmp/
Page 90 PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 5. Environmental Analysis
Drop-off and pick-up procedures may take a week or so for drivers to learn. The project includes several safety features that would assist in avoiding conflicts between cars and people, as listed below. The proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses.
. New pavement marking on Netherly Avenue and the loop driveway to indicate the one-way directional traffic flow.
. New signage placed on Netherly Avenue and loop driveway to indicate enter-only and exit-only. . Signage to indicate the bus-only zone. . The bus-only zone would be separated from automobile traffic on Netherly Avenue with delineators such as orange cones.
. Meetings and informational packets would be distributed to instruct parents on the student drop-off and pick-up procedures.
. The District staff and Webster ES principal would review student drop-off and pick-up procedures monthly while school is in session to identify bottlenecks and areas for improvement, and make adjustments as needed.
. The District would encourage staff from other schools to carpool. . The District would encourage parents of students from other schools to rideshare with other students or take the bus. d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less Than Significant Impact. The surrounding roadways would continue to provide emergency access to the school and to surrounding properties during construction. A new fire lane would be designated along the northeast part of the campus. This area would be kept clear for emergency vehicle ingress and egress by fire trucks, police units, and ambulance/paramedic vehicles. For the interim housing areas, emergency vehicular access would be provided via the new fire lane. In addition, project design and construction would be required to comply with recommendations from the Long Beach Fire Department for reducing impacts to emergency response or evacuation plans. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access
e) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact. The nearest public transit routes to the school are Long Beach Transit routes 191 and 192 that pass one block east of the school. Modifications to the school campus and temporary housing of students would not require the relocation of bus stops or block sidewalks in the vicinity of the school. There would be temporary construction activity for a period of two months; all construction
October 2017 Page 91 INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 5. Environmental Analysis
equipment staging and worker parking would be located within the campus and would not have the potential to interfere with pedestrians during the student arrival and departure times. Impacts to pedestrian and bicycle travel and to public transit would be less than significant. 5.17 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
No Impact. The school is not listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources. No impacts would occur.
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Less Than Significant Impact. Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) requires meaningful consultation with California Native American tribes on potential impacts to tribal cultural resources, as defined in PRC Section 21074. Tribal cultural resources are sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either eligible or listed in the California Register of Historical Resources or local register of historical resources.79
As part of the AB 52 process, Native American tribes must submit a written request to LBUSD (lead agency) to be notified of projects within their traditionally and culturally affiliated area. LBUSD must provide written, formal notification to those tribes within 14 days of deciding to undertake a project. A tribe must respond to LBUSD within 30 days of receiving this notification if it wants to engage in consultation on the project, and LBUSD must begin the consultation process within 30 days of receiving the tribe’s request. Consultation concludes when either 1): the parties agree to mitigation measures to avoid a significant effect on a tribal cultural resource, or 2) a party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes mutual agreement cannot be reached.
To date the District has received three tribal requests to be notified about projects. These requests were received from the following: Gabrieleño Band of the Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, letter dated July 2016; San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, letter dated December 1, 2016; and Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, letter dated May 16, 2016.
79 California Natural Resources Agency. AB 52 Regulatory Update. http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/.
Page 92 PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 5. Environmental Analysis
The Long Beach Unified School District notified each tribe about this project in a letter dated July 19, 2017, and sent via certified mail and email to:
. Mr. Andrew Salas, Tribal Chairman, Gabrieleño Band of the Mission Indians – Kizh Nation . Mr. Anthony Morales, Chief, San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians . Mr. Michael Mirelez, Cultural Resource Coordinator, Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians None of the tribes responded within the 30 days. Additionally, as of the date on this document no tribes have since responded to request consultation. No tribal cultural resource impacts would occur.
5.18 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
No Impact. The proposed project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The Los Angeles RWQCB sets requirements for waste discharges to municipal storm drains, which would apply to the operation phase of the project. Construction impacts to stormwater are regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board and are discussed above in Section 5.9, Hydrology and Water Quality. Impacts related to RWQCB requirements would be less than significant.
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
No Impact. The Webster ES campus is connected to municipal water distribution and wastewater (sewer) collection systems, and water and wastewater lines would be connected to serve the portable buildings. Although the temporary restrooms would increase water demand on campus, the demand would not increase overall demand because the students would be transferred from other schools in the District and within the water district. The project would not induce population growth or increase water treatment demands in the project region. No impact would occur.
The proposed school project would not increase the student population or wastewater generation in the project region. Development of the proposed project would not require construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities, and no impact would occur. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
No Impact. Implementation of the project would not increase the amount of impervious surfaces that could potentially increase stormwater flows from the campus. Drainage from the school campus would continue to flow into existing storm drain systems, with no increase in stormwater runoff. No impact would occur.
October 2017 Page 93 INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 5. Environmental Analysis
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
No Impact. The school currently serves students in the region, and school modernization would not increase the student population or long-term water demands in the project region. Water would be used on- site during construction for dust suppression and similar activities. The small amount of water that would be used for the project construction would not result in the need for new or expanded water entitlements. No impact would occur. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
No Impact. Project development would not impact wastewater treatment capacity, as substantiated in (a) and (b), above. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
No Impact. The Automated Refuse Collection Division in the Department of Public Works Environmental Service Bureau provides solid waste disposal for the City of Long Beach. Nonhazardous municipal solid waste is disposed of in Class III landfills, while construction waste, yard trimmings, and earth-like waste are disposed of in unclassified (inert) landfills. In 2016, the most recent year for which data are available, 13 Class III landfills and 1 unclassified landfill with solid waste facility permits accepted waste from the City of Long Beach.80 For the Class III landfills open to the City, the remaining total disposal capacity is approximately 830 million tons.81
Construction of the project would not involve demolition, site grading, and building construction activities. Construction and demolition waste are not expected to be generated. The amount of solid waste generated by the project upon completion would not increase because the student and staff population for LBUSD would not increase. No impact would occur. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact. The school administrators and the District currently comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste and would continue this practice. No impact would occur.
80 CalRecycle, Disposal Reporting System (DRS), Jurisdiction Disposal by Facility, Disposal during 2016 for Long Beach. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/Reports/Viewer.aspx?P=ReportYear%3d2016%26ReportName%3dReportEDRSJuris DisposalByFacility%26OriginJurisdictionIDs%3d267. 81 Based on information from County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works: Los Angeles County Integrated Waste Management Plan 2014 Annual Report, December 2015, and Cal Recycle http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/.
Page 94 PlaceWorks INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 5. Environmental Analysis
5.19 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is on an elementary school in an urban setting and surrounded by development. The project site consists of a District-owned street, asphalt-paved parking lot, and hardcourts; it does not contain any special-status vegetation or animal species. Project development would not degrade the quality of the environment; reduce the population, range, or habitat of a species of fish or wildlife or a rare or endangered plant or animal species; or eliminate an important example of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Impacts to archaeological and paleontological resources would also be less than significant. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
Less Than Significant Impact. The project consists of temporary student housing and reconfiguration of Netherly Avenue to a one-way street at Webster ES. The portable buildings would be removed after modernization at four schools. This project would not result in cumulative impacts. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would support the existing students and programs of LBUSD. As demonstrated in this Initial Study, the interim housing and street reconfiguration would not substantially increase environmental effects that would directly or indirectly affect human beings. Impacts would be less than significant.
October 2017 Page 95 INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 5. Environmental Analysis
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 96 PlaceWorks
6. List of Preparers
LEAD AGENCY
Long Beach Unified School District
Elston F. Soares, Facilities Consultant, Facilities Development and Planning Branch
Erin Scott-Keith, Project Manager, Facilities Development and Planning Branch
CEQA CONSULTANT
PlaceWorks
Dwayne Mears, AICP, Principal
Alice Houseworth, AICP, LEED AP, Senior Associate
Michael Milroy, Associate
Michael Watson, Associate
Fernando Sotelo, PE. PTP, Senior Associate
John Vang, JD, Associate
Cameron Sullivan, Project Engineer, Noise, Vibration & Acoustics
Tammie Kuo, Traffic Intern
Cary Nakama, Graphic Artist
October 2017 Page 97 INTERIM HOUSING AT DANIEL WEBSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 6. List of Preparers
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 98 PlaceWorks BOARD OF EDUCATION LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
SUBJECT: Resolution No.120617-C Enclosures: Yes Relating to Information Made Available to the Public in the form of an Annual and Five-Year Reportable Fees Report for Fiscal Year 2016-2017, in Compliance with Government Code Sections 66006 and 66001
CATEGORY: New Business Reason for Board Consideration: Action
Business Services Date: December 6, 2017
BACKGROUND:
Education Code Section 17620 et seq. and Government Code Section 65995 et seq. allow school districts to levy developer fees, or reportable fees, on residential and commercial/industrial development. The fees are used for facilities improvements and housing to accommodate the additional students generated from new development. Fees are typically paid to the school district as a condition of a property developer or owner obtaining a building permit from the city for a construction project.
Pursuant to the statutory requirements, the District prepares an Annual and Five-Year Reportable Fees Report on an annual basis. For the period of July 1, 2016 – June 30, 2017, $5,666,831.10 reportable fees were collected. The current fund balance, as of June 30, 2017, for Developer Fees collected is $2,879,376.87. Current project expenses and future expenses associated with this fund include but may not be limited to the following Facility Master Plan projects: construction of Browning High School, new restroom at Longfellow Elementary School, HVAC/Modernization at Avalon K-12 school, HVAC/Modernization at Burcham Elementary School, HVAC/Modernization at Jefferson Academy, HVAC/Modernization at Lakewood High School, HVAC/Modernization at Lindsey Academy, HVAC/Modernization at Longfellow Elementary School, HVAC/Modernization at Polytechnic High School, HVAC/Modernization at Stephens Middle School, and HVAC/Modernization at Washington Middle School. The Annual and Five-Year Reportable Fees Report for Fiscal Year 2016-2017 (Report) was made available to the public fifteen (15) days prior to the District’s Board meeting at the LBUSD Facilities Development & Planning Branch on 2425 Webster Avenue, Long Beach, CA. and Notices of the December 6, 2017 Board meeting and availability of the Report have been posted at four library locations (Long Beach, Signal Hill, Lakewood, and Avalon), the District Administration Office and the Facilities Branch Office and published in the Press Telegram.
At the Board meeting on December 6, 2017, the Board will be asked to consider adoption of Resolution No. 120617-C, approving the Report, in compliance with Government Code Sections 66006 and 66001.
1
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend approval of Resolution No. 120617-C
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT RELATING TO INFORMATION MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC IN THE FORM OF AN ANNUAL AND FIVE-YEAR REPORTABLE FEES REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017, IN COMPLIANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 66006 AND 66001
Approved: Approved and Recommended:
Yumi Takahashi Christopher J. Steinhauser Chief Business & Financial Officer Superintendent of Schools
2
RESOLUTION NO. 120617-C
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT RELATING TO INFORMATION MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC IN THE FORM OF AN ANNUAL AND FIVE-YEAR REPORTABLE FEES REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017, IN COMPLIANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 66006 AND 66001
WHEREAS, the Long Beach Unified School District (“District”) has received and expended statutory and/or alternative school facilities fees (“Reportable Fees”) in connection with school facilities (“School Facilities”) of the District for new development, and these funds have been deposited in a separate capital facilities account as provided by Government Code Section 66006(a); and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Section 66006(a), the District has established and maintained a separate capital facilities account and maintained such separate capital facilities accounts in a manner to avoid any commingling of the Reportable Fees with other revenues and funds of the District, except for temporary investments, and has expended those Reportable Fees collected for the sole purpose for which they were collected; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 66006(b)(1) provides that the District shall make available to the public within one hundred eighty (180) days after the last day of each fiscal year a written report; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 66001(d) provides that for the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit into the account, and every five (5) years thereafter, the District shall make findings with respect to the capital facilities account fund that remain unexpended; and
WHEREAS, when findings are required by Government Code Section 66001(d), they shall be made in connection with the information required by Government Code Section 66006; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 66006(b)(2) requires that the governing body of the District review the information made available to the public at a regularly scheduled public meeting and any other relevant information including, but not limited to, that certain Reportable Fees Report prepared by the District entitled, “THE LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ANNUAL AND FIVE-YEAR REPORTABLE FEES REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017, IN COMPLIANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 66006 AND 66001” not less than fifteen (15) days after this Reportable Fees Report is made available to the public; and
WHEREAS, the District has complied with all of the foregoing provisions.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the Board does hereby find and determine that the foregoing recitals and determinations are true and correct.
Section 2. That pursuant to Government Code Sections 66001(d) and 66006(b)(1) and (2), the District has made available to the public the requisite information and proposed findings concerning the collection and expenditure of Reportable Fees related to School Facilities for new development within the District. 1
Section 3. That the Board of the District at a public meeting has reviewed the following information pursuant to Government Code Section 66006(b)(1), as is required by Government Code Section 66006(b)(2), including:
(A) A brief description of the type of Reportable Fees in the account; (B) The amount of the Reportable Fees; (C) The beginning and ending balance of the account; (D) The amount of Reportable Fees collected and the interest earned; (E) An identification of each Project on which Reportable Fees were expended and the amount of the expenditures on each Project, including the total percentage of the cost of the Project that was funded with Reportable Fees; (F) An identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the Project will commence if the District determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on an incomplete Project, as identified in Section 66001(a)(2), and the Project remains incomplete; (G) A description of each interfund transfer or loan made from the account, including the Project on which the transferred or loaned Reportable Fees will be expended, and, in the case of an interfund loan, the date on which the loan will be repaid, and the rate of interest that the account will receive on the loan; and (H) The amount of refunds made pursuant to Section 66001(e) and any allocations pursuant to Section 66001(f).
Section 4. That the Board of the District at a public meeting has reviewed the proposed findings, as required by Government Code Section 66001(d), including:
A. Identification of the purpose to which the Reportable Fees are to be put; B. Demonstration of a reasonable relationship between the Reportable Fees and the purpose for which they are charged; C. Identification of all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of Projects of the District; and D. Designation of the approximate dates on which the funding referred to in paragraph (3) is expected to be deposited into the appropriate account.
Section 5. That the Board of the District hereby determines that all Reportable Fees, collections and expenditures have been received, deposited, invested and expended in compliance with the relevant sections of the Government Code and all other applicable laws for the fiscal year 2016-2017.
Section 6. That the Board of the District hereby determines that no refunds and allocations of Reportable Fees, as required by Government Code Section 66001, are deemed payable at this time.
Section 7. That the Board of the District hereby determines that the District is in compliance with Government Code Section 66000, et seq., relative to receipt, deposit, investment, expenditure or refund of Reportable Fees received and expended relative to School Facilities for new development for the fiscal year 2016-2017.
2
ADOPTED, SIGNED AND APPROVED, this 6th day of December, 2017.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
By: President
By: Vice President
By: __ Member
By: __ Member
By: Member
3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, Christopher J. Steinhauser, Secretary, Board of Education of the Long Beach Unified School District, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Board of Education of such District at a regular meeting of said Board held on the 6th day of December, 2017, at which a quorum of such Board was present and acting throughout and for which notice and an agenda was prepared and posted as required by law and at which meeting all of the members of such Board had due notice and that at such meeting the attached resolution was adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Secretary, Board of Education of the Long Beach Unified School District
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, Christopher J. Steinhauser, Secretary, Board of Education of the Long Beach Unified School District do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 120617-C, which was duly adopted by the Board of Education of the Long Beach Unified School District at a meeting thereof on the 6th day of December, 2017.
Secretary, Board of Education of the Long Beach Unified School District