DRAFT INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION...

DRAFT INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE

LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT POLYTECHNIC HIGH SCHOOL AUDITORIUM

AB 300 PROJECT LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA

Prepared for:

LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Facilities Development and Planning Branch

2425 Webster Avenue Long Beach, California 90810

Prepared by:

5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 750

Santa Ana, California 92707 (949) 261-5414

February 2014

This page is intentionally blank.

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Polytechnic High School Auditorium AB 300 Project Long Beach Unified School District

Chambers Group, Inc. ii 20613

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

SECTION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1 1.1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION .................................................................................. 1 1.2 AVAILABILITY OF THE NOI AND IS/MND ....................................................................................... 3 1.3 PUBLIC REVIEW / HEARING .......................................................................................................... 4 1.4 ORGANIZATION OF IS/MND.......................................................................................................... 4

SECTION 2.0 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ............................................... 6 2.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND................................................................................................................ 6 2.2 PROJECT PURPOSE ........................................................................................................................ 6 2.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................................... 6 2.4 PROJECT LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS ........................................................................ 6

2.4.1 Location ............................................................................................................................ 6 2.4.2 Proposed Project Site ....................................................................................................... 7 2.4.3 General Plan Designation/Zoning .................................................................................... 7 2.4.4 Adjacent Land Uses .......................................................................................................... 7

2.5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................... 13 2.5.1 Auditorium Updates ....................................................................................................... 13 2.5.2 Project Design Features ................................................................................................. 14 2.5.3 Construction Activities ................................................................................................... 17 2.5.4 Project Schedule ............................................................................................................ 17 2.5.5 Remedial Actions / Site Cleanup .................................................................................... 17

2.6 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS........................................................................................ 18 2.6.1 State of California .......................................................................................................... 18 2.6.2 City of Long Beach .......................................................................................................... 18

2.7 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS ............................................................................................................. 18

SECTION 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ........................................................................... 23 3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: .............................................................. 23 3.2 DETERMINATION ........................................................................................................................ 23

SECTION 4.0 – EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.............................................................. 24

SECTION 5.0 – CHECKLIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ..................................................................... 26 5.1 AESTHETICS ................................................................................................................................. 26

5.1.1 Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 26 5.2 AGRICULTURE & FOREST RESOURCES ........................................................................................ 27

5.2.1 Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 28 5.3 AIR QUALITY ................................................................................................................................ 29

5.3.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................... 29 5.3.2 Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 34

5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................ 39


Chambers Group, Inc. iii 20613

5.4.1 Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 39 5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................... 41

5.5.1 Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 42 5.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS .................................................................................................................. 44

5.6.1 Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 45 5.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ................................................................................................... 47

5.7.1 Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 47 5.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.................................................................................... 48

5.8.1 Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 49 5.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ............................................................................................ 52

5.9.1 Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 53 5.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING ......................................................................................................... 57

5.10.1 Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 58 5.11 MINERAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................. 58

5.11.1 Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 59 5.12 NOISE .......................................................................................................................................... 59

5.12.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................... 59 5.12.2 Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 60

5.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING ...................................................................................................... 64 5.13.1 Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 65

5.14 PUBLIC SERVICES......................................................................................................................... 65 5.14.1 Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 66

5.15 RECREATION ............................................................................................................................... 67 5.15.1 Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 68

5.16 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ................................................................................................ 68 5.16.1 Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 69

5.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................... 71 5.17.1 Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 71

5.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ................................................................................. 74 5.18.1 Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 74

SECTION 6.0 – SOURCE REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 76

SECTION 7.0 – REPORT AUTHORS AND CONSULTANTS ...................................................................... 79


Chambers Group, Inc. iv 20613

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A – AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS APPENDIX B – HISTORICAL REPORT APPENDIX C – GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION APPENDIX D– GREENHOUSE GAS ANALYSIS APPENDIX E – HAZARDOUS MATERIALS REPORT APPENDIX F – PEA EQUIVALENT APPENDIX G – ABATEMENT PLAN APPENDIX H – NOISE ANALYSIS


Chambers Group, Inc. v 20613

LIST OF FIGURES Page

Figure 1 - Project Vicinity Map ...................................................................................................................... 8

Figure 2 - Project Site Map ............................................................................................................................ 9

Figure 3 – Existing Site and Surrounding Uses ............................................................................................ 10

Figure 4– Proposed Project – Site Plan ....................................................................................................... 22

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation ............................................................................................... 3

Table 2: Area Projects ................................................................................................................................. 19

Table 3 – Air Quality Designations/Classifications for the Project Area ..................................................... 32

Table 4 – Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary ................................................................................. 33

Table 5 – Regional Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................................ 35

Table 6 – Local Thresholds of Significance .................................................................................................. 36

Table 7 – Short-term Regional Emissions from the Proposed Project ........................................................ 37

Table 8 – Short-term Local Emissions at the Nearest Sensitive Receptor .................................................. 37

Table 9 – Construction Equipment Emissions and Usage Factors .............................................................. 61

Table 10 – Construction Noise Levels ......................................................................................................... 61

Table 11 – Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Emissions ............................................................... 62


Chambers Group, Inc. 1 20613

SECTION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION

The Long Beach Unified School District (District) proposes a seismic retrofit and upgrade to the existing Auditorium Building of Long Beach Polytechnic High School (Proposed Project). The Proposed Project also includes the renovation of the building interior finishes and upgrades to light fixtures and the fire alarm, electrical infrastructure, plumbing, mechanical, and sprinkler systems. The primary existing seismic deficiencies are: inadequate wall anchorage systems, overstressed concrete wall pilasters at the high roofs due to out-of-plane loads, overstressed roof diaphragms, lack of diaphragm continuity cross ties, and insufficient seismic separation between the Auditorium Building and the adjacent Band Room Building. The proposed seismic retrofit will address these deficiencies.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), codified in the Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq. of the California Code of Regulations were established to require public agencies to consider and disclose the environmental implications of their actions (projects). CEQA was enacted in 1970 by the California Legislature to disclose to decision makers and the public the significant environmental effects of a proposed project and identify possible ways to avoid or minimize significant environmental effects of a project by requiring implementation of mitigation measures or recommending feasible alternatives. CEQA applies to all California governmental agencies at all levels, including local, regional, and state, as well as boards, commissions, and special districts.

As provided by Public Resources Code Section 21067, the public agency with the principal responsibility for approving a project that may have a significant effect upon the environment is considered the Lead Agency. The District, as Lead Agency for the Proposed Project, is responsible for preparing environmental documentation in accordance with the CEQA as amended to determine if approval of the discretionary actions requested and subsequent implementation of the Proposed Project could have a significant impact on the environment. As defined by Section 10563 of the CEQA Guidelines, an Initial Study (IS) is prepared primarily to provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for determining whether an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration (ND), or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) would be appropriate for providing the necessary environmental documentation and clearance for the Proposed Project.

This IS analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Project. The findings in this IS have determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is the appropriate level of environmental documentation because any potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels. Potential impacts and mitigation measures are discussed below in this IS/MND.

The District will be the Lead Agency for purposes of CEQA and is the agency charged with carrying out or approving the Proposed Project. Pursuant to the State of California Public Resources Code and the “Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970” as amended to date, the District has prepared this IS/MND and a Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt the IS/MND on the Proposed Project.

1.1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

As detailed in Section 5.0 of this IS/MND, the Proposed Project would require mitigation measures for environmental impacts to cultural resources based on the Auditorium Building having characteristics



that are considered to be historically significant. In addition, the Proposed Project has incorporated regulatory requirements into the project design and as part of implementation. Regulatory requirements are not considered mitigation measures. Regulatory requirements are the existing local, state, and federal regulations and/or laws that serve to offset or prevent certain environmental impacts and are applicable to the Proposed Project independent of CEQA review. According to Section 15370 of the CEQA Guidelines, “mitigation” includes the following:

(a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.

(b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation.

(c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment.

(d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action.

(e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.

The Proposed Project is required to comply with all applicable regulatory requirements and would be required to implement recommended mitigation measures to avoid or reduce potentially significant adverse impacts to cultural resources. The following mitigation measures have been developed to reduce the potentially significant impacts of the Proposed Project to less than significant levels.



Table 1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation

Potential Impact Mitigation Measure

Implementation of the Proposed Project will result in some loss of character-defining features: historic seats on the ground floor and balcony are scheduled for refurbishment; the balcony will be removed; the north stair connecting the main lobby to the balcony lobby will be altered; and portions of the tile flooring on the north and south sides of the lobby will be removed.

C-1 Recordation and Photography. Prior to construction, a Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) Level III recordation shall be prepared. The existing condition of the Auditorium shall be documented in as-built drawings, large-format black-and-white photographs, and a written narrative in accordance with HABS requirements. Completion of the HABS Level III recordation should be implemented before commencement of construction activities. This documentation shall be prepared by a qualified architectural historian or historic architect and a photographer experienced in HABS photography. Original archival prints shall be submitted to the Library of Congress, the California Office of Historic Preservation, and the Long Beach Unified School District Archive.

C-2 Demolition and Construction Monitoring. Due to the complexity of the balcony removal and elevator shaft construction, potential damage may occur to historic, character-defining features of the Auditorium. The Proposed Project shall be designed to avoid the potential for damage to historic materials and features. Demolition plans shall be prepared for the Proposed Project and reviewed by a qualified preservation consultant. The Proposed Project shall also be conditioned to require construction monitoring by a qualified preservation consultant to ensure full conformance to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and to ensure that the appropriate preservation treatment for any unanticipated preservation issues encountered during demolition/construction is properly completed.

Implementation of the Proposed Project could pose a threat to public health or the environment due to the presence of shallow soil impacted primarily with lead at various parts of the site.

HAZ-1 A Removal Action Workplan (RAW) will be prepared for the project site outlining measures for the remediation of soils. The RAW will be prepared under the direction of the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), and DTSC will certify that all necessary remedial actions have been completed in accordance with the approved RAW.

1.2 AVAILABILITY OF THE NOI AND IS/MND

The NOI and the IS/MND have been distributed directly to responsible and reviewing agencies and interested groups and persons for comment. The IS/MND and NOI are also available for review during normal business hours at the District Facilities Development and Planning Branch, 2425 Webster



Avenue, Long Beach, California. The NOP/IS is also available online at: http://www.lbschools.net/District/MeasureK/poly_hs.cfm.

1.3 PUBLIC REVIEW / HEARING

A thirty-day (30-day) public review period for the draft IS/MND shall commence on FEBRUARY 24TH, 2014. Written comments must be sent to the District, by MARCH 25TH, 2014. Comments should include “Polytechnic High School Auditorium AB 300 Project” in the subject line and the name of a contact person, if representing an agency. Comments can be submitted in the following ways:

Mail Long Beach Unified School District Facilities Development & Planning Attn: Tom Rizutti, Administrative

Coordinator 2425 Webster Avenue Long Beach, CA 90810

Email [email protected]

Fax (562) 595-8644

The Final IS/MND must be certified by the Long Beach Unified School District Board of Education (Board) to comply with the requirements of CEQA before any action can be taken on the Proposed Project. The Board will consider the information contained in this IS/MND in making a decision to approve or deny the Proposed Project.

1.4 ORGANIZATION OF IS/MND

This IS/MND is organized into the following sections:

Section 1.0 – Introduction: This section provides an introduction to the IS/MND process and a brief overview of the findings of the environmental analysis.

Section 2.0 – Project Description and Environmental Setting: This section describes the Proposed Project and provides a description of the project location, the existing environmental setting, and the Proposed Project objectives. This section also identifies approvals needed for implementation of the Proposed Project.

Section 3.0 – Environmental Determination: This section identifies environmental factors that would potentially be affected by the Proposed Project and determines what level of CEQA documentation is needed based on the environmental analysis.

Section 4.0 – Environmental Analysis: This section describes how the environmental analysis was conducted. Additionally this section describes how environmental impacts were evaluated and provides a list of terminology used in the analysis.

Section 5.0 – Checklist of Environmental Issues: This section provides the completed CEQA checklist used for the environmental analysis. Potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures are identified in this section.

http://www.lbschools.net/District/MeasureK/poly_hs.cfm�

mailto:[email protected]�



Section 6.0 – Source References: This section identifies references used in the preparation of the IS/MND.

Section 7.0 – Report Authors and Consultants: This section identifies individuals responsible for preparation of the IS/MND.



SECTION 2.0 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

2.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND

On January 22, 2008, the District’s Board adopted a Facility Master Plan with the intent to implement school facility projects over the next 20 to 25 years. The Measure K School Bond, approved on November 4, 2008, is a $1.2-billion Classroom Repair, Student Safety Bond. Since the measure was approved, steady progress has been made to improve and upgrade the District's aging schools.

The Long Beach Polytechnic High School Auditorium AB 300 Project is one of the projects identified in the Facility Master Plan and funded by Measure K. According to the Facility Master Plan, approximately two-thirds of the current square footage devoted to school space is 50 years old or greater; and, as a result, the majority of the current square footage is in need of major renovation or replacement. The need for a seismic upgrade to the Auditorium was identified on the Seismic Safety Inventory of California Public Schools.

2.2 PROJECT PURPOSE

The Proposed Project involves seismic upgrades to the Auditorium Building that will provide code-required updates for fire, life and safety, and accessibility. The upgrades will extend the life of the Auditorium Building. These actions will ensure that the District is in compliance with current building codes and accessibility requirements.

2.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

The objective of the Proposed Project is to provide a quality, up-to-date, safe, and energy efficient educational facility, consistent with the California Department of Education requirements. Specific objectives to meet the project purpose include having a school facility that:

meets current seismic safety standards; meets Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards; meets current building codes; extends the life of the facility through building systems upgrades; provides improved performance space; provides upgrades to building fixtures and finishes; provides additional band practice rooms through space reorganization, abates lead paint and asbestos from the building; and meets Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS) criteria.

2.4 PROJECT LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

2.4.1 Location

Long Beach Polytechnic High School is located at 1600 Atlantic Avenue, Long Beach (City), California (see Figure 1, Project Vicinity). The Proposed Project site is located on the southern edge of the campus in the Auditorium Building (Building 30) (see Figure 2, Project Location).



2.4.2 Proposed Project Site

Long Beach Polytechnic High School occupies an area of approximately 28.5 acres and includes approximately 19 multi-story buildings, including a gymnasium, auditorium, classrooms, workshops, and administration offices. Long Beach Polytechnic High School also includes a multi-level parking structure, parking lots, concrete walkways, asphalt-paved sports courts, landscaped areas, grassy sports fields, and utility infrastructure. The majority of the buildings, including the original Auditorium Building, were constructed in 1930. The Auditorium, along with most of the other masonry buildings on campus, was largely destroyed by the Long Beach earthquake of 1933. Some of the Auditorium survived the earthquake and was incorporated into the new design in 1935.

The Proposed Project site includes the Auditorium Building and surrounding walkways, encompassing an area of less than 1 acre. The Auditorium Building is a two-story structure that includes a lobby, an auditorium, an interior balcony, a stage, a theater technician office, restrooms, equipment rooms, storage, mechanical rooms, and electrical rooms and dressing rooms in the basement (see Figure 3, Existing Site and Surrounding Uses). The Auditorium Building has a generally rectangular plan configuration with irregularities in elevation due to various high/low roof areas and a cantilevered balcony structure. The Auditorium Building underwent limited seismic strengthening following the 1933 Long Beach earthquake. The Auditorium is approximately 36,800 square feet in size.

The Auditorium roof above the main seating area on the ground floor is constructed with 3-inch by 12-inch tongue-and-groove, wood plank straight sheathing, spanning to long-span steel trusses. The trusses are supported by the perimeter concrete bearing walls. The Auditorium Building structure is supported on a conventional shallow concrete foundation system featuring isolated spread footings below columns and continuous footings below walls. The ground floor level consists of a concrete structural slab that spans to concrete beams supported by concrete pier elements to accommodate the subgrade mechanical ductwork. The Auditorium Building contains a heavy plaster ceiling system throughout. 2.4.3 General Plan Designation/Zoning

The Proposed Project site has a General Plan Land Use designation of Institutional and School District, which is defined as land that serves basic public needs over a long period of time, enduring through changes in the surrounding socio-economic environment. These types of uses include City Civic Center, county and state regional office buildings, academic research institutions, colleges, universities, hospitals, cemeteries, and public schools (City of Long Beach 1997).

2.4.4 Adjacent Land Uses

The Proposed Project site is situated within the Long Beach Polytechnic High School campus, which is located east of Atlantic Avenue and south of Jackrabbit Lane. Land uses adjacent to the Proposed Project site include other school buildings onsite, Roosevelt Elementary School (to the west), mixed retail (to the west), single-family residential (to the south), park facilities (to the east), moderate-density residential (to the east), and townhomes (to the north).

_̂

Figure 1Project Vicinity Map

0 0.5 10.25Miles

Name: 20613 Project Vicinity Map.MxdPrint Date: 6/21/2013, Author: stondre

¯Legend

_̂ Site Location

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, USGS, Intermap, iPC, NRCAN, EsriJapan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, 2013



Figure 1 - Project Vicinity Map

14Th St

Esther St

Lewi

s Ave

Lime A

ve

Anaheim St

Pacific Coast Hwy

17Th St

16Th St

Marti

nLuth

erK i

ngJr

A ve

Saint

Mar

ys C

t

New York St

Pasa

dena

Ave

Atlan

tic Av

e

15Th St

12Th St

Linsle

y Ct

Myrtl

e Ave

Dayman St

Olive

Ave

Linde

n Ave

Alam

o Ct

Elm

Ave

Libert

y Ct

Figure 2Project Site Map

0 200 400100Feet

Name: 20613 Project Site Map.MxdPrint Date: 6/21/2013, Author: msimmons

¯Legend

Site Location

Service Layer Credits: Copyright:© 2013 Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTomSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN,

IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community



Figure 2 - Project Site Map



Figure 3 – Existing Site and Surrounding Uses

Figure 3A:

Long Beach Polytechnic High School Auditorium, exterior facing east

Figure 3B:

Classrooms adjacent to Auditorium, facing north



Figure 3: Existing Site and Surrounding Uses (continued)

Figure 3C:

Auditorium Lobby, facing north

Figure 3D:

Existing balcony seating, facing west



Figure 3: Existing Site and Surrounding Uses (continued)

Figure 3E:

Hallway to existing dressing rooms, facing south



2.5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.5.1 Auditorium Updates

The Proposed Project will consist of the seismic retrofit and upgrades to the existing Auditorium Building as well as the renovation of the building interior finishes and upgrades to light fixtures and the fire alarm, electrical infrastructure, plumbing, mechanical, and sprinkler systems (see Figure 4, Proposed Project – Site Plan).

The primary existing seismic deficiencies are inadequate wall anchorage systems, overstressed concrete wall pilasters at the high roofs due to out-of-plane loads, overstressed roof diaphragms, lack of diaphragm continuity cross ties, and insufficient seismic separation between the Auditorium Building and the adjacent Band Room Building. The proposed seismic retrofit will address these deficiencies.

The updates will include rehabilitation work including:

removing and replacing Auditorium ceilings, removing stage rigging, replacing the sprinkler system, refurbishing the original seats, upgrading the roofing, upgrading Auditorium doors, and upgrading the smoke vent above the stage.

In addition, the Proposed Project will also include new construction including:

a path to the primary entrance, an elevator within the existing Auditorium Building footprint, a new stairway to the basement, new, expanded public restrooms in a new location, demolition of existing balcony and replacement with stadium seating, new lifts to access the stage and front of house seating, a new fire curtain, removal of the lobby stairs that lead up to the second level, and a new mechanical system.

The seismic upgrades included in the Proposed Project will consist of:

wall anchorage upgrades; roof diaphragm strengthening; wall pilaster strengthening; balcony modification; grid iron replacement; shear wall retrofit; ADA modifications; existing gunite attachment, nonstructural systems, and plaster ceiling removal; and seismic separation retrofit.



2.5.2 Project Design Features

Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS) Criteria

The District has adopted the CHPS Criteria as part of the Facility Master Plan. The mission of CHPS is to facilitate design, construction, and operation of high performance schools that are not only energy and resource efficient, but also healthy, comfortable, and well-lit and that provide amenities for a quality education. The goals of CHPS are to:

1. Increase student performance with better-designed and healthier facilities;

2. Raise awareness of the impact and advantages of high performance schools;

3. Provide professionals with better tools to facilitate effective design, construction, and maintenance of high performance schools;

4. Increase school energy and resource efficiency; and

5. Reduce peak energy loads.

The District has incorporated CHPS criteria into the Proposed Project design and operation in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations as well as standard District practices. These measures are an integral part of the District’s design and operational criteria, and, as such, are standard conditions, not mitigation measures. CHPS features include:

reduction in water use; energy efficiency; daylighting; improvements in indoor air quality; recycling, sustainable design; and acoustical measures.

Program Design Best Management Practices

The following design standards are included as part of the Program Design Best Management Practices (BMPs) and would be applied to the Proposed Project:

Noise/Acoustics: An analysis of the acoustical environment of the Proposed Project site (such as traffic) and characterization of planned building components (such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) will be conducted to achieve a classroom acoustical performance of 45 dBA Leq background noise level (unoccupied) or better.

Light and Glare: All luminaries, or lighting sources, in connection with school construction projects will be installed in such a manner as to minimize glare for pedestrians and drivers and to minimize light spilling onto adjacent properties.

Cultural Resources: Prior to construction, a Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) Level III recordation shall be prepared. The existing condition of the Auditorium shall be documented in as-built drawings, large-format black-and-white photographs, and a written narrative in accordance with HABS



requirements. Completion of the HABS Level III recordation should be implemented before commencement of construction activities. This documentation shall be prepared by a qualified architectural historian or historic architect and a photographer experienced in HABS photography. Original archival prints shall be submitted to the Library of Congress, the California Office of Historic Preservation, and the Long Beach Unified School District Archive.

Fire Protection: The District will reduce impacts to fire protection services in connection with new construction projects by ensuring: (1) preliminary review and approval of site plans prior to final approval by the City of Long Beach Fire Department; and (2) the provision of a full site plan for the local review depicting existing and proposed buildings, access drive gates, retaining walls, unobstructed fire lanes, and other construction affecting Fire Department access.

Construction Best Management Practices

The District will require its construction contractor to comply with all applicable rules and regulations in carrying out the construction of the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project would also comply with the District’s Construction BMPs, which are established and refined as part of the District’s current building efforts.

Construction Traffic: The District will require its contractors to submit a worksite traffic control plan to the City of Long Beach for review prior to construction. The plan will show the location of any haul routes, construction hours, protective devices, warning signs, and access to abutting properties. If any temporary lane closures are required the traffic control plan will include the following requirements:

Advanced signing on any affected roads, alerting motorists of roadway construction and increased construction vehicle movements; signing to alert motorists to temporary or limited access points to adjacent properties; and appropriate barricades.

Temporary traffic cones/barricades, temporary striping, and delineators would be appropriately placed by the City in order to maintain one through lane in each direction during the morning and evening peak hours. Lane widths within these areas may be reduced.

Traffic would be controlled during construction by adhering to the guidelines contained in the “California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.” These guidelines provide methods to minimize construction effects on traffic flow.

Prior to construction, the construction contractor would provide written notification to the City of Long Beach regarding the schedule and duration of construction activities and to identify alternative routes that may be used to avoid response delays.

Construction activities requiring lane closures would be limited to outside morning and evening peak hours.

Construction Air Emissions: The District will require its construction contractors to comply with all applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) rules (i.e., Rule 403, Fugitive Dust [2003]) and regulations in carrying out construction activities. To reduce the potential for significant hazardous emissions during a removal action, the District or its contractor will:

Maintain slow speeds with all vehicles;



Load impacted soil directly into transportation trucks to minimize soil handling;

During dumping, minimize soil drop height into transportation trucks or stockpiles;

During transport, cover or enclose trucks transporting soils, maintain a freeboard height of at least 12 inches, and repair trucks exhibiting spillage due to leaks;

Place stockpiled soil in areas shielded from prevailing winds;

During active demolition and debris removal, apply water every 4 hours to the area within 100 feet of the structure being demolished to reduce vehicle trackout;

Use a gravel apron to reduce mud/dirt trackout from unpaved truck exit routes;

During demolition activities, apply water to disturbed soils, both after demolition is completed and at the end of each day of cleanup;

Prohibit demolition activities when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour;

Implement the following for construction combustion equipment:

a. The operator will ensure the use of Tier 2 vehicles or the equivalent alternative fueled or catalyst equipped diesel construction equipment, where practicable, including all off-road and portable diesel-powered equipment.

b. The operator will ensure that idling time will be minimized by either shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the time of idling to 5 minutes at a maximum.

Construction Noise: The District will require the construction contractor to keep properly functioning mufflers on all internal combustion and vehicle engines used in construction. The District will require its construction contractor to provide advance notice of the start of construction to include all noise sensitive receptors, businesses, and residences adjacent to the project site and specifically when and where construction activities will occur and provide contact information for filing noise complaints. During construction activities, the construction contractor will, to the extent feasible, locate portable equipment and will store and maintain equipment away from the adjacent residents; will require all mobile or stationary internal combustion engine powered equipment or machinery be equipped with exhaust and air intake silencers in proper working order; and will require all construction equipment be properly maintained with operating mufflers and air intake silencers as effective as those originally installed by the manufacturer. The District will require its construction contractors to comply with all applicable noise ordinances of the affected jurisdiction and, when necessary, to comply with all applicable noise ordinances.

Cultural Resources: The District will require that the construction contractor, in the event a cultural resource (i.e., historic or prehistoric artifact, fossilized shell, or bone) is discovered during ground-disturbing activities, stop all work within the immediate area and notify the District and that the find be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. If the find is determined to be potentially significant, the archaeologist, in consultation with the District’s Facilities Development and Planning Branch, will develop a treatment plan. All work in the immediate vicinity of the unanticipated discovery will cease until the qualified archaeologist has evaluated the discovery or the treatment plan has been implemented.



The Proposed Project shall be designed to avoid the potential for damage to historic materials and features. Demolition plans shall be prepared for the Proposed Project and reviewed by a qualified preservation consultant. The Proposed Project shall also be conditioned to require construction monitoring by a qualified preservation consultant to ensure full conformance to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and to ensure that the appropriate preservation treatment for any unanticipated preservation issues encountered during demolition/construction is properly completed.

Hazardous Materials Management: The District will require its construction contractor to remediate hazardous materials at the project site under supervision of the District. The potential hazards are generally limited to asbestos-containing materials, lead-based paint, and fluorescent light tubes and ballasts.

Sewer Services: The District or its construction contractor will coordinate with the appropriate jurisdictions and departments prior to the relocation or upgrade of any sewer facilities to reduce the potential for disruptions in service.

2.5.3 Construction Activities

Once the Proposed Project has been approved by the Board, project construction activities could begin in Fall 2014. The construction would begin after the Division of the State Architect (DSA) approval of plans and specifications is obtained and the contract for construction is awarded. Prior to demolition and/or construction activities, existing asbestos and lead-based paint would be abated in accordance with all applicable requirements, including SCAQMD Rule 1403, and disposed of properly (SCAQMD 1994). Uncontaminated materials would be recycled to the extent feasible; and the remaining debris, existing vegetation, and other structures would be removed and disposed of at an appropriate landfill.

2.5.4 Project Schedule

The Proposed Project is expected to occur over a 15-month period, approximately between Fall 2014 and Winter 2015. Construction activities will take place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday.

2.5.5 Remedial Actions / Site Cleanup

Due to the presence of shallow soil impacted primarily with lead at various parts of the site, a Removal Action Workplan (RAW) will be prepared for the project site outlining measures for the remediation of impacted soils. The RAW will include a plan for conducting the removal action, a description of the onsite impact, and goals to be achieved by the removal action, as required by the California Health and Safety Code Section 25323.1. The RAW will also include site-specific Removal Action Objectives (RAOs) established to protect human health and the environment.

Based on the soil sampling and analyses performed for the Preliminary Environmental Assessment (PEA) Equivalent, impacted soils shall be removed from the areas around, and adjacent to, the Auditorium Building and Band Room Building areas to be disposed of offsite at appropriately permitted waste disposal facility(ies). Any excess soil (including those environmentally impacted) shall be adequately profiled per prevailing CCR Title 22 and Federal waste characterization criteria prior to their offsite transport and disposal.



2.6 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS

A public agency, other than the Lead Agency, that has discretionary approval over a project is referred to under the CEQA Guidelines as a “Responsible Agency.” The Responsible Agencies and their corresponding approvals for this Proposed Project include:

2.6.1 State of California

Department of Toxic Substances Control (Determination of “No Further Action”)

Department of Education

o School Facilities Planning Division (Plan Approval)

Department of General Services

o Office of Public School Construction (Approval of Funding)

o Division of the State Architect (Approval of Fire, Life Safety, Structural, and Access Compliance)

Department of Conservation

o California Geologic Survey (Final Geotechnical Investigation)

2.6.2 City of Long Beach

Fire Department (Approval of Site Plan for Emergency Access)

Long Beach Water Department (Approval of Sewer Location/Relocation Plans, if needed)

2.7 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS

Cumulative impacts refer to the combined effect of proposed project impacts with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. As set forth in the CEQA Guidelines, the discussion of cumulative impacts must reflect the severity of the impacts as well as the likelihood of their occurrence; however, the discussion need not be as detailed as the discussion of environmental impacts attributable to the project alone. As stated in CEQA, “a project may have a significant effect on the environment if the possible effects of a project are individually limited but cumulatively considerable.”

According to the CEQA Guidelines:

“Cumulative impacts” refer to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable and which compound or increase other environmental impacts.

The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects.



The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment, which results from the incremental impact of the proposed project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.”

In addition, as stated in the CEQA Guidelines, it should be noted that:

“The mere existence of significant cumulative impacts caused by other projects alone shall not constitute substantial evidence that the proposed project’s incremental effects are cumulatively considerable.”

As previously stated, and as set forth in the CEQA Guidelines, related projects consist of “closely related, past, present, and reasonable foreseeable probable future projects that would likely result in similar impacts and are located in the same geographic area.” The majority of the lands adjacent to the study area are already highly urbanized. The ability to develop new projects within or adjacent to the study area is limited. Based on a review of area project data from the City of Long Beach Department of Development Services Project Status Spreadsheet, 20 projects within the vicinity of the Proposed Project were identified, as shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Area Projects

Address/Location Project Name Land Use Intensity Project Description

Southwest corner of Willow Street and Atlantic Avenue

Atlantic Avenue and Willow Street Phase III

Mixed Use Mixed Use Development

South side of Vernon Street West of Atlantic Avenue

Atlantic Avenue and Willow Street – Ronald McDonald House

Housing Development of Ronald McDonald House.

Pacific Avenue between Pacific Coast Highway and Willow Street

Wrigley Village Streetscape Enhancement Phase II

Infrastructure Median island landscaping and pedestrian street lighting.

Pacific Coast Highway between the 710 freeway and western city limits

PCH Streetscape Improvement Project

Infrastructure

Upgrades to the existing street medians, sidewalk landscaping, public art, decorative bike racks, and refurbishment of existing bus shelters.

Northeast corner of Pine Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway

Pine and PCH Land Development Site Commercial Commercial Development

Southwest corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue

Poly Gateway Project Commercial Passive open space




Address/Location Project Name Land Use Intensity Project Description Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue to Walnut Avenue

Pacific Right-of-Way Bike Trail Development

Parks & Open Space Open Space, bike trail and

pedestrian improvements.

1044 East 16th Street McBride Park Senior Center Expansion

Public Services/Facilities

Expansion of existing park and development of a senior center.

Northeast corner of 15th Street and Alamitos Ave.

Rosa Parks Park and Intersection Improvements

Parks & Open Space Park development.

Pacific Coast Highway, Anaheim Street, Magnolia and San Francisco Avenues

Magnolia Industrial District Street Enhancement Phase II

Industrial Improvements along Daisy Ave.

Southeast corner of Atlantic Avenue and Anaheim Street and Southwest corner of Anaheim Street and Lime Avenue

Atlantic Avenue and Anaheim Street Commercial Commercial Development

14 acres of land along the lower Los Angeles River

Drake/Chavez Park Expansion

Park & Open Space 14 acres

Developing new and expanding existing open space opportunities in the Drake/Chavez Park

226 W. 10th Street 734 Maine Avenue 539 Daisy Avenue 543 Daisy Avenue

Willmore Historic Home Relocation Sites

Housing The purchase and rehabilitation of historic homes.

3rd Street at CityPlace

WPA Mosaic Open Space Development

Parks & Open Space Open space development.

Pine and Pacific Avenue, and 3rd and 4th Street

Pine & Pacific Avenue

Apartments Retail

Phase 1: 5-story residential development. 175 units 7,280 sf retail. Phase 2:12-story mid-rise

Mixed Use development.




Address/Location Project Name Land Use Intensity Project Description residential development 186 units 18,670 sf retail

240 Long Beach Boulevard Art Exchange Commercial 10,150 sf Art production and gallery

facility.

201 Promenade (Broadway and Promenade)

Hotel Esterel Hotel Retail Meeting Space

165-rooms 8,875 sf 3,000 sf

Hotel development.

The Promenade Promenade Master Plan

Parks & Open Space Improvement, expansion and

redesign of The Promenade.

The Promenade Pacifica – Lennar South Coast Homebuilding

Housing Retail

62 housing units 4,331 sf retail

Residential, mixed use development.

West Long Beach Industrial redevelopment Area

Westside Storm Drain Improvement Project

Infrastructure Improve and update existing storm drains.

Source: Long Beach Development Services, February 2014

2

A

5 63 8 9 101 11 12 13

V

L

MN

P

Q

R

S

TU

4 7 14

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

J

K

A010

SITE PLAN

0

1" = 50'-0"

18060

1" = 60'-0"

120

PARKING ANALYSIS

1. REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS FORHARDSCAPE, PAVING, FENCING AND GATEINFORMATION.

2. REFER TO SHEETS G002, G003 & G004FOR BUILDING EGRESS INFORMATION.

3. REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR SPOTELEVATIONS ALONG ACCESSIBLE ROUTEOF TRAVEL AND LEVEL CHANGES.

4. REFER TO BUILDING FLOOR PLAN FORADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

ACCESSIBLE PARKING NOTES1. ACCESSIBLE PARKINGREQUIREMENTS AND QUANTITIES PER2010 CBC 1129B2. ONE IN EVERY EIGHT ACCESSIBLESPACES, BUT NOT LESS THAN ONE,SHALL BE DESIGNATED VANACCESSIBLE.

ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLSSTANDARD PARKING STALLS

VAN ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLSCARPOOL STALLSTOTALREQ. ACCESSIBLE STALLS

493101-##

BUIL

DIN

G 2

00A

# 9

24

BUIL

DIN

G 1

00A

# 6

57

BUIL

DIN

G 3

00A

# 3

14, 3

15, 6

57, 9

24, 1

541

& 1

2288

GIRL'S LOCKER RM.A# 10299

BLDG 700A# 40380,

42555 & 45043

BLDG 550A# 48062

BUILDING 500A# 16265

LIBR

ARY

BUIL

DIN

G 6

00A

# 8

865,

403

80 &

450

43

BUILDING 800A# 952, 8537, 11093, 40537,

18734 & 16263

JACKRABBIT LANE

R.O

.T.C

. BLD

G 9

50A

#10

158

BUILDING 150A# 21305

BUILDING 850A# 8592 & 38661

BLEA

CHE

RSA

# 1

0158

KEYNOTES

GENERAL NOTES

LEGEND

SCIENCE BUILDING250

A# 51972

BLDG750

A# 8554

Clie

ntC

ons

ulta

ntPro

ject

1600

Atlan

tic Av

enue

Long

Beac

h, CA

9081

3

DGS No.: 03-______

2425 Webster AvenueLong Beach, CA 90810

She

et Ti

tle

She

et N

o.

She

et In

fo

DATE:PROJ MGR:SCALE:JOB No.:

KC06/14/13

Issu

eA

genc

y A

ppro

val

AC

DIV. OF THE STATE ARCHITECTIDENTIFICATION STAMP

OFFICE OF REGULATION SERVICES

DATE

FILE NO:A#:

FLS SS

REV. DATE DESCRIPTION

AB

2

3

12093.10

Arc

hite

ctSta

mps

1

5

4

Sca

leG

raphi

cKey P

lan

Note

s / L

egend

s

CDEF

5161 California Ave.Suite 100

Irvine, CA 92617

ARCHITECT

Tel: 949-261-1001www.lpainc.com

LBUSD No.: 9056-1112-654

POLY

TECH

NIC

HIGH

SCHO

OL

50%

CONS

TRUC

TION

DOCU

MENT

S

19-6203-______

AS NOTED

02/01/1306/14/13

100% DD50% CD

AUDITORIUMBUILDING 30

A# 85

BAN

D R

OO

MBU

ILD

ING

25

A#

106

59

MA

RTIN

LUT

HER

KIN

G J

R. A

VE.

E. 15th ST

ATL

AN

TIC A

VE.

901

A#

516

80

903

A#

516

80

905

A#

516

80

907

A#

516

80

909

A#

516

80

911

A#

516

80

913

A#

516

80

915

A#

516

80

917

A#

516

80

919

A#

03-

1022

37

921

A#

03-1

0223

7P4

A#

105

539

P5A

# 1

0553

9

P3A

# 1

0553

9P2

A#

105

539

P1A

# 1

0553

9

P6A# 110090

P7A# 110090

P8A# 110090

BUIL

DIN

G 4

00A

# 3

14, 3

15, 6

57, 9

24 &

154

1

PORT

ABL

EA

#03

-111

036

SOUTHGYMNASIUM

A# 10299

NATATORIUMA# 8413 & 47243

BOY'SLOCKER RM.

A# 10299

NORTHGYMNASIUM

A# 10299

RRA

# 1

0553

9

BASEBALL DUGOUTA# 67666

ESTHER ST.

PACIFIC COAST HWY

SITE PLAN1 1" = 60'-0"



Figure 4– Proposed Project – Site Plan

SECTION 3.0 - ENVIRONMENTAL determination

3.1 environmental factors potentially affected:

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

D Aesthetics D Biological Resources D Hazards & Hazardous Materials o Mineral Resources D Public Services D Utilities I Service Systems

3.2 DETERMINATION

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

o Agriculture Resources D Cultural Resources D Hydrology I Water Quality D Noise

D D D D

D D

Recreation D Mandatory Findings of Significance

Air QualitylGHG Emissions Geology ISoils Land Use I Planning Population I Housing Transportation I TraffiC

1. I find that the project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a D NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

2. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the ~ environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

3. I find the proposed project may have a Significant effect on the environment, and an D ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

4. I find that the proposed project may have a "potentially significant impact" or D "potentially significant unless mitigated impact" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

5. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the D environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

2-19-2014 Date

Tom Rizzuti. Administrative Coordinator, long Beach Unified School District Name, Title

mdirecto

Typewritten Text

23



SECTION 4.0 – 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. 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 will 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 offsite as well as onsite, 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 (mitigation measures from earlier analyses may be cross-referenced).

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 Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.

b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.

c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

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.

7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.



8. The explanation of each issue should identify:

a. the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and

b. the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.



SECTION 5.0 – CHECKLIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

5.1 AESTHETICS

The aesthetic value of an area is a measure of its visual character and quality, combined with the viewer response to the area. Scenic quality can best be described as the overall impression that an individual viewer retains after driving through, walking through, or flying over an area. Aesthetic resources include scenic resources, which include water forms, trees, rock outcroppings, historic buildings, and scenic highways. Impacts to aesthetic resources typically include obstruction and destruction of views to or from scenic resources and/or the degradation of the visual character of the area.

5.1.1 Evaluation

a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Potentially

Significant Impact

Less than Significant

With Mitigation Incorporation


Impact No

Impact

No Impact. The City of Long Beach General Plan does not identify any scenic vistas in the Proposed Project vicinity. Scenic vistas typically include views along the coastline, mountain vistas, and other scenic features of the region that are significant visual resources for residents and businesses. The Proposed Project site is located off Atlantic Avenue and Jackrabbit Lane in a heavily developed area of Long Beach. The Proposed Project site is surrounded by an elementary school to the west; mixed retail to the west; residential to the north, south, and east; and park facilities to the east. Therefore, views to and from the Proposed Project site are limited and are not part of a scenic vista. No impacts to a scenic vista are expected.

b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

Potentially Significant

Impact




Impact No

Impact

No Impact. The Proposed Project site is approximately 0.2 mile from California State Highway 1. Although parts of the highway are classified as eligible for state scenic highway designation, the section nearest the Proposed Project site is not identified as being eligible or officially designated (Caltrans 2013). The City of Long Beach has one scenic route, which follows Ocean Boulevard, approximately 1.4 miles from the Proposed Project site. The Proposed Project would involve upgrades and improvements to the Auditorium Building, which is considered a historic resource under CEQA (PCR 2014). The Proposed Project site is not visible from State Highway 1 or Ocean Boulevard. Therefore, no significant impacts associated with scenic resources within a state scenic highway will occur.



c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would provide upgrades and improvements to the existing Auditorium Building. The area surrounding the Proposed Project site is designated as residential and institutional. The Proposed Project involves mostly interior work within the existing building. The visual character of the site would be slightly altered; however, the exterior of the buildings would look similar to existing conditions. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings, and a less than significant impact would occur.

d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project site contains existing lighting from the existing Long Beach Polytechnic High School, especially along the perimeter of the school. The Proposed Project would include security lighting, internal lighting, and lighting associated with the Auditorium. Lighting at the Proposed Project site would be installed to minimize glare for pedestrians and drivers and to minimize spillover light. The District would apply design standards that would avoid any impacts that would adversely affect day or nighttime views, such as window shades and glare shields. The exterior finish of the proposed buildings would not include any highly reflective surfaces, aside from standard glass windows. A less than significant impact would occur.

5.2 AGRICULTURE & FOREST RESOURCES

Agricultural resources include prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, unique farmland, farmland of local importance, and commercial grazing land as defined in the CEQA Guidelines for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, pursuant to Section 65570 of the Government Code; as well as land in a Williamson Act contract.

Prime farmland is land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, fiber, forage, oilseed, and other agricultural crops with minimum inputs of fuel, fertilizer, pesticides, and labor and without intolerable soil erosion (7U.S.C. 4201(c)(1)(A)).

Unique farmland is land other than prime farmland that is used for the production of specific high-value food and fiber crops such as citrus, tree nuts, olives, cranberries, fruits, and vegetables (7 U.S.C. 4201(c)(1)(B)).

Additional farmland of statewide or local importance is land identified by state or local agencies for agricultural use but not of national significance (7 U.S.C. 4201(c)(1)(C)).

The California Legislature passed the Williamson Act in 1965 to preserve agricultural and open-space lands by discouraging premature and unnecessary conversion to urban uses. The Act creates an



arrangement whereby private landowners contract with counties and cities to voluntarily restrict their land to agricultural and compatible open-space uses.

The Williamson Act is a means to restrict the uses of agricultural and open-space lands to farming and ranching uses during the length of the contract period. The Williamson Act Program was also envisioned as a way for local governments to integrate the protection of open space and agricultural resources into their overall strategies for planning urban growth patterns.

5.2.1 Evaluation

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?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

No Impact. Long Beach Polytechnic High School is designated in the City of Long Beach General Plan as Institutional use (City of Long Beach 2012). The Proposed Project site is outside the survey boundary for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, as the area is heavily urbanized (FMMP 2010). The surrounding areas are designated as Residential on the north, south, and east. The area to the west of the Proposed Project site is designated as Institutional and Mixed Retail. Since the Proposed Project site is currently developed, no farmland activities or resources will be converted to non-agricultural uses. No impacts to areas designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance would result.

b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? Potentially

Significant Impact




Impact No

Impact

No Impact. The Proposed Project site is not zoned for agricultural use, and Williamson Act contracts do not occur on the property (City of Long Beach 2012). 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))?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

No Impact. The Proposed Project site does not contain any forest land or timberland. The site is zoned Institutional; and, although it contains a few ornamental trees and other vegetation, it is not classified as designated forest land. No impact would result.

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Potentially

Significant Impact




Impact No

Impact

No Impact. No forest land exists at the Proposed Project site. Therefore, no loss of forest land and no impact 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-agriculture use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

No Impact. The Proposed Project site is in a heavily developed urban area. No forest land or Farmland is located in or adjacent to the site. No impact will occur.

5.3 AIR QUALITY

This section describes the existing air quality setting and potential effects from Proposed Project implementation on the site and its surrounding area. Chambers Group, Inc. (Chambers Group) performed construction air quality modeling through use of the CalEEMod Version 2013.2. The model output is provided in Appendix A.

5.3.1 Environmental Setting

The Proposed Project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). Air quality regulation within the SCAB is administered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which implements the programs and regulations required by the federal and state Clean Air acts.

Atmospheric Setting

Air quality is a function of both the rate and location of pollutant emissions under the influence of meteorological conditions and topographical features. Atmospheric conditions such as wind speed, wind



direction, and air temperature gradients interact with physical features of the landscape to determine air movement and dispersal and, consequently, their effect on air quality. The combination of topography and inversion layers generally prevents dispersion of air pollutants in the SCAB.

The climate of the SCAB is influenced by the semi-permanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific Ocean, which results in a mild climate tempered by cool sea breezes. Although the SCAB has a semi-arid climate, the air near the surface is typically moist because of the presence of a shallow marine layer. Except for infrequent periods when dry air is brought into the Basin by offshore winds, the ocean effect is dominant. Periods of heavy fog are frequent; and low stratus clouds, often referred to as “high fog,” are a characteristic climate feature. Average temperatures for Long Beach (Weather Channel 2013), range from a low of 46 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) in December to highs of 84 °F in August. Rainfall averages approximately 15 inches a year, with almost all annual rainfall coming from the fringes of mid-latitude storms from late November to early April and summers being almost completely dry.

Winds are an important parameter in characterizing the air quality environment of a project site because they determine the regional pattern of air pollution transport and control the rate of dispersion near a source. Daytime winds in the SCAB are usually light breezes from off the coast as air moves regionally onshore from the cool Pacific Ocean. These winds are usually the strongest in the dry summer months. Nighttime winds in the SCAB result mainly from the drainage of cool air off the mountains to the east, and they occur more often during the winter months and are usually lighter than the daytime winds. Between the periods of dominant airflow, periods of air stagnation may occur, both in the morning and evening hours. Whether such a period of stagnation occurs is one of the critical determinants of air quality conditions on any given day.

During the winter and fall months, surface high-pressure systems north of the SCAB combined with other meteorological conditions can result in very strong winds from the northeast that are called “Santa Ana Winds.” These winds normally have durations of a few days before predominant meteorological conditions are reestablished. The highest wind speed typically occurs during the afternoon, due to daytime thermal convection caused by surface heating. This convection brings about a downward transfer of momentum from stronger winds aloft. It is not uncommon to have sustained winds of 60 miles per hour with higher gusts during a Santa Ana Wind occurrence.

Regulatory Setting

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) have been established for the following criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), inhalable particulate matter (PM10), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead. The CAAQS also set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and visibility.

Areas are classified under the federal Clean Air Act as either “attainment” or “nonattainment” areas for each criteria pollutant based on whether the NAAQS have been achieved or not. Attainment relative to the state standards is determined by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The SCAB has been designated by the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a nonattainment area for O3 and suspended particulates (PM10 and PM2.5). Currently, the SCAB is in attainment with the ambient air quality standards for CO, lead, SO2, and NO2.

EPA has designated SCAB as extreme nonattainment for the 8-hour average ozone standard. On March 12, 2008, EPA strengthened its 8-hour “primary” and “secondary” ozone standards to 0.075 parts per million (ppm). The previous standard, set in 1997, was 0.08 ppm. The SCAQMD, the agency



principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the SCAB, has developed a plan incorporated in the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) that shows measures to reduce 8-hour ozone levels to below the federal standard by June 15, 2021.

EPA has designated SCAB as nonattainment for PM2.5 and PM10. In 1997, EPA established standards for PM2.5 (particles less than 2.5 micrometers), which were not implemented until March 2002. PM2.5 is a subset of the PM10 emissions whose standards were developed to complement the PM10 standards that cover a full range of inhalable particle matter. The SCAQMD has developed a plan that shows measures to reduce PM2.5 levels to below the federal standard by 2014. For the PM10 health standards, the annual PM10 standard was revoked by EPA on October 17, 2006; and the 24-hour average PM10 standard was to be achieved by December 31, 2006. The SCAB has met the PM10 standards at all monitoring stations, and a request for redesignation to attainment is pending with EPA.

PM2.5 in the SCAB has improved significantly in recent years, with 2010 and 2011 being the cleanest years on record. In 2011, only one station in the Basin (Metropolitan Riverside County at Mira Loma) exceeded the annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the 98th percentile form of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, as well as the 3-year design values for these standards. Basin-wide, the federal PM2.5 24-hour standard level was exceeded in 2011 on 17 sampling days.

The SCAB is currently in attainment for the federal standards for SO2, CO, and NO2. While the concentration level of the new 1-hour NO2 federal standard (100 parts per billion [ppb]) was exceeded in the SCAB at two stations (Central Los Angeles and Long Beach) on the same day in 2011, the NAAQS NO2 design value has not been exceeded. Therefore, the Basin remains in attainment of the NO2 NAAQS.

The SCAB has been designated by CARB as a nonattainment area for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. Currently, the SCAB is in attainment with the ambient air quality standards for CO, lead, SO2, NO2, and sulfates and is unclassified for visibility reducing particles and hydrogen sulfide.

On June 20, 2002, the CARB revised the PM10 annual average standard to 20 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) and established an annual average standard for PM2.5 of 12 µg/m3. These standards were approved by the Office of Administrative Law in June 2003 and are now effective. On September 27, 2007, CARB approved the South Coast Air Basin and the Coachella Valley 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for Attaining the Federal 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 Standards. The plan projects attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard by 2024 and the PM2.5 standard by 2015. A revised draft of the 2012 AQMP was released in September 2012 and was adopted by the SCAQMD Board on December 7, 2012, and was adopted by CARB via Resolution 13-3 on January 25, 2013. The 2012 AQMP was prepared in order to meet the federal Clean Air Act requirement that all 24-hour PM2.5 nonattainment areas prepare a State Implementation Plan (SIP), which was required to be submitted to EPA by December 14, 2012, and demonstrate attainment with the 24-hour PM2.5 standard by 2014. The 2012 AQMP demonstrates attainment of the federal 24-hour PM2.5 standard by 2014 in the Basin through adoption of all feasible measures; and therefore, no extension of the attainment date is needed. Table 3 presents the designations and classifications applicable to the Proposed Project area.



Table 3 – Air Quality Designations/Classifications for the Project Area

Pollutant Averaging Time National Standards Attainment Date1

California Standards2

1979 1-Hour Ozone (O3)3

1-Hour (0.12 ppm)

Nonattainment (Extreme) 11/15/2010 (not attained)

Nonattainment 1997 8-Hour Ozone (O3)4

8-Hour (0.08 ppm)

Nonattainment (Extreme) 6/15/2024

2008 8-Hour Ozone (O3)

8-Hour (0.075 ppm)

Nonattainment (Extreme) 12/31/2032

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1-Hour (35 ppm) 8-Hour (9 ppm)

Attainment (Maintenance) 6/11/2007 (attained) Maintenance

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)5

1-Hour (100 ppb)

Unclassifiable/Attainment Attained

Nonattainment

Annual (0.053 ppm)

Attainment (Maintenance) 9/22/1998

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)6 1-Hour (75 ppb) Designation Pending/ Pending

Attainment 24-Hour (0.14 ppm) Annual (0.03 ppm)

Unclassifiable/Attainment 3/19/1979 (attained)

Particulate Matter (PM10) 24-Hour (150 µg/m3)

Nonattainment (Serious) 12/31/2006 (redesignation submitted)7 Nonattainment

Particulate Matter (PM2.5)

24-Hour (35 µg/m3)

Nonattainment 12/14/2014

Nonattainment Annual (15.0 µg/m3)

Nonattainment 4/5/2015

Lead (Pb) 3-Months Rolling (0.15 µg/m3)

Nonattainment (Partial)8

12/31/2015 Nonattainment 1 Obtained from Draft 2012 AQMP, SCAQMD, 2012. A design value below the NAAQS for data through the full year or smog

season prior to the attainment date is typically required for attainment demonstration. 2 Obtained from http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. 3 1-hour O3 standard (0.12 ppm) was revoked, effective June 15, 2005; however, the Basin has not attained this standard

based on 2008-2010 data and has some continuing obligations under the former standard. 4 1997 8-hour O3 standard (0.08 ppm) was reduced (0.075 ppm), effective May 27, 2008; the 1997 O3 standard and most

related implementation rules remain in place until the 1997 standard is revoked by U.S. EPA. 5 New NO2 1-hour standard, effective August 2, 2010; attainment designations January 20, 2012; annual NO2 standard

retained. 6 The 1971 annual and 24-hour SO2 standards were revoked, effective August 23, 2010; however, these 1971 standards will

remain in effect until one year after U.S. EPA promulgates area designations for the 2010 SO2 1-hour standard. Area designations are expected in 2012, with Basin designated Unclassifiable/Attainment.

7 Annual PM10 standard was revoked, effective December 18, 2006; redesignation request to Attainment of the 24-hour PM10 standard is pending with U.S. EPA.

8 Partial Nonattainment designation – Los Angeles County portion of Basin only. Monitored Air Quality

The air quality at any site is dependent on the regional air quality and local pollutant sources. Regional air quality is determined by the release of pollutants throughout the air basin. Estimates of the existing emissions in the SCAB provided in the Air Quality Management Plan of December 2012 indicate that, collectively, mobile sources account for 59 percent of the volatile organic compounds (VOC), 88 percent of the NOx emissions, and 40 percent of directly emitted PM2.5, with another 10 percent of PM2.5 occurring from road dust.



The SCAQMD has divided the SCAB into 38 air-monitoring areas with a designated ambient air monitoring station representative of each area. The Proposed Project site is located in the South Coastal Los Angeles air monitoring area (Area 4). Since not all air monitoring stations measure all the tracked pollutants, the data from the following two monitoring stations, listed in the order of proximity to the Proposed Project site, have been used: South Long Beach Monitoring Station (South Long Beach Station) and Long Beach-2425 Webster Street Monitoring Station (West Long Beach Station).

The South Long Beach Station is located approximately 0.3 mile northeast of the Proposed Project site at 1305 E. Pacific Coast Highway, Long Beach; and the West Long Beach Station is located approximately 2.2 miles west of the Proposed Project site at 2425 Webster Avenue, Long Beach. Table 4 presents the monitored pollutant levels from these monitoring stations. PM10 and PM2.5 were measured at the South Long Beach Station; and O3, CO, and NO2 were measured at the West Long Beach Station. It should be noted that due to the air monitoring station’s distance from the Proposed Project site, recorded air pollution levels at the air monitoring stations reflect with varying degrees of accuracy the local air quality conditions at the Proposed Project site. Table 4 presents the composite of gaseous pollutants monitored from 2010 through 2012 at the nearby monitoring stations.

Table 4 – Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary

Air Pollutant 2010 2011 2012 Ozone (O3)

Max 1 Hour (ppm) Days > CAAQS (0.09 ppm)

0.099 1

0.074 0

0.080 0

Max 8 Hour (ppm) Days > NAAQS (0.08 ppm1)

Days > CAAQS (0.070 ppm)

0.084 1 1

0.063 0 0

0.066 0 0

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Max 1 Hour (ppm) Days > NAAQS (20 ppm)

3.7 0

3.7 0

3.8 0

Max 8 Hour (ppm) Days > NAAQS (9 ppm)

2.60 0

3.31 0

2.57 0

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Max 1 Hour (ppm) Days > NAAQS (0.10 ppm)

0.118 1

0.090 0

0.098 0

Particulate Matter (PM10) Max Daily California Measurement Days > NAAQS (150 µg/m3) Days > CAAQS (50 µg/m3) State Average (20 µg/m3)

76 0 2

27.2

50 0 0

28.6

54 0 1

25.4 Particulate Matter (PM2.5)

Max Daily National Measurement Days > NAAQS (35 µg/m3) National Average (15.0 µg/m3) State Average (12 µg/m3)

33.7 0

10.4 10.4

42.0 3

10.7 ND

46.7 4

10.5 ND

Abbreviations: > = exceed ppm = parts per million µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standard NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality ND = Insufficient or No Data Bold = exceedance Source: http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/

http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/�



Sensitive Receptors in Project Vicinity

The nearest sensitive receptors to the Proposed Project site consist of single-family and multi-family homes located on the south side of E. 15th Street and as near as 70 feet to the south of the Proposed Project site.

5.3.2 Evaluation

a) Would the project result in conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

Less than Significant Impact. CEQA requires a discussion of any inconsistencies between a proposed project and applicable General Plans (GPs) and regional plans (CEQA Guidelines Section 15125). The regional plan that applies to the Proposed Project includes the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Therefore, this section discusses any potential inconsistencies of the Proposed Project with the AQMP.

The purpose of this discussion is to set forth the issues regarding consistency with the assumptions and objectives of the AQMP and discuss whether the Proposed Project would interfere with the region’s ability to comply with federal and state air quality standards. If the decision-makers determine that the Proposed Project is inconsistent, the Lead Agency may consider project modifications or inclusion of mitigation to eliminate the inconsistency.

The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that “New or amended GP [General Plan] Elements (including land use zoning and density amendments), Specific Plans, and significant projects must be analyzed for consistency with the AQMP.” Strict consistency with all aspects of the plan is usually not required. A proposed project should be considered consistent with the AQMP if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (SCAQMD 1993) identifies two key indicators of consistency:

(1) Whether the project will 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 (except as provided for CO in Section 9.4 for relocating CO hot spots).

(2) Whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP in 2010 or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase.

Both of these criteria are evaluated in the following sections.

Criterion 1 - Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations?

Based on the air quality modeling analysis conducted for the Proposed Project, it was determined that short-term construction impacts and long-term operations impacts will not exceed SCAQMD regional and local toxic air contaminant thresholds of significance. The Proposed Project is not projected to



contribute to the exceedance of any air pollutant concentration standards and is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the first criterion. Impacts would be less than significant.

Criterion 2 - Exceed Assumptions in the AQMP?

Consistency with the AQMP assumptions is determined by performing an analysis of the Proposed Project with the assumptions in the AQMP. The emphasis of this criterion is to ensure that the analyses conducted for the Proposed Project are based on the same forecasts as the AQMP. The Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide consists of three sections: Core Chapters, Ancillary Chapters, and Bridge Chapters. The Growth Management, Regional Mobility, Air Quality, Water Quality, and Hazardous Waste Management chapters constitute the Core Chapters of the document. These chapters currently respond directly to federal and state requirements placed on SCAG. Local governments are required to use these as the basis of their plans for purposes of consistency with applicable regional plans under CEQA. For the Proposed Project, the City of Long Beach General Plan defines the assumptions that are represented in the AQMP.

The Proposed Project consists of the seismic retrofit and upgrades to the existing Auditorium Building of Long Beach Polytechnic High School. The Proposed Project would not require a General Plan Amendment or zone change. Therefore, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to exceed the AQMP assumptions for the Proposed Project site and is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the second criterion.

Based on the above, the Proposed Project will not result in an inconsistency with the SCAQMD AQMP. Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur.

b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

Less than Significant Impact. As shown above in Table 4, the Proposed Project area is designated as a federal and state nonattainment area for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD 1993) provides guidance for analyzing potential adverse air quality impacts within the region. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that any project in the SCAB with daily emissions that exceed any of the identified significance thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact. For the purposes of this air quality impact analysis, a regional air quality impact would be considered significant if emissions exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds identified in Table 5.

Table 5 – Regional Thresholds of Significance

Pollutant Emissions (Pounds/Day)

VOC NOx CO Sox PM10 PM2.5 Lead

Construction 75 100 550 150 150 55 3 Operation 55 55 550 150 150 55 3 Source: SCAQMD, http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/signthres.pdf

http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/signthres.pdf�



Air emissions from project-related construction may have the potential to exceed the state and federal air quality standards in the Proposed Project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the South Coast Air Basin. In order to assess local air quality impacts, the SCAQMD has developed Localized Significant Thresholds (LSTs) to assess project-related air emissions in the Proposed Project vicinity. The SCAQMD has also provided Final Localized Significant Threshold Methodology (SCAQMD 2008), which details the methodology to analyze local air emission impacts. The Localized Significant Threshold Methodology found that the primary emissions of concern are NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5.

The significance thresholds for the local emissions of NO2 and CO are determined by subtracting the highest background concentration from the last three years of these pollutants (presented in Table 4 above) from the most restrictive ambient air quality standards for these pollutants that are outlined in the Localized Significant Thresholds. Since PM10 and PM2.5 currently exceed the most restrictive ambient air quality standards in the Basin, their thresholds are based on SCAQMD’s Rule 403. Allowable fugitive dust emissions limits and background concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 are not factored into the threshold. Table 6 below shows the Localized Significant Thresholds for NO2, CO, and PM10 and PM2.5 as well as the background concentrations and resultant significance concentrations.

Table 6 – Local Thresholds of Significance

Pollutant SCAQMD LSTs Background Level1 Significance Threshold2

NO2 – 1-Hour Average (State) 0.18 ppm (338 µg/m3) 0.118 ppm (222 µg/m3) 116 µg/m3

CO – 1-Hour Average (State) 20 ppm (23,000 µg/m3) 3.8 ppm (4,370 µg/m3) 18,630 µg/m3

CO – 8 Hour Average (State/Federal) 9.0 ppm (10,000 µg/m3) 3.3 ppm (3,678 µg/m3) 6,322 µg/m3

PM10 – 24-Hour Average3 10.4 µg/m3 - 10.4 µg/m3

PM2.5 – 24-Hour Average3 10.4 µg/m3 - 10.4 µg/m3

1 Obtained from Table 3 above and based on the highest measured concentrations from the last three years. 2 Represents the maximum offsite concentrations allowed during construction. 3 Ambient air quality threshold based on SCAQMD Rule 403. Source: SCAQMD, http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/signthres.pdf

Construction of the Proposed Project would create air emissions primarily from equipment exhaust and fugitive dust. The air emissions from the Proposed Project were analyzed through use of the CalEEMod model (see Appendix A). Construction activities would include the seismic retrofit and upgrades to the existing 36,800-square-foot Auditorium Building, including renovation of interior finishes; fire alarm system; electrical infrastructure; light fixtures; and plumbing, mechanical, and sprinkler systems. In order to provide a worst-case analysis, the air analysis has been based on the demolition and reconstruction of 41,600 square feet of building space in the CalEEMod model.

Construction is anticipated to start as early as Fall 2014 and be completed over a 15-month period. Construction will occur during typical construction work hours. Table 7 shows the estimated worst-case daily emissions that would be predicted from each phase of the Proposed Project.

http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/signthres.pdf�



Table 7 – Short-term Regional Emissions from the Proposed Project

Activity Pollutant Emissions in pounds/day

ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5

Demolition 3.34 24.74 15.85 0.02 2.44 1.66 Auditorium Renovation 2.13 16.79 11.50 0.01 1.31 1.07 Painting 15.72 2.59 2.13 0.00 0.25 0.23 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceed? No No No No No No Source: CalEEMod Version 2013.2.

As shown in Table 7, short-term emissions would not exceed SCAQMD regional criteria pollutant thresholds. In addition, construction emissions would be short-term, limited only to the period when construction activity is taking place. As such, construction-related regional emissions would be less than significant for the Proposed Project.

The Proposed Project’s construction-related air emissions from fugitive dust and onsite diesel emissions may have the potential to exceed the state and federal air quality standards in the Proposed Project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the South Coast Air Basin. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Proposed Project are single-family homes located as near as 70 feet (21 meters) from the proposed construction activities.

The local air quality emissions from construction were analyzed using SCAQMD’s Mass Rate LST Look-up Tables and the methodology described in Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, prepared by SCAQMD, revised July 2008. The Look-up Tables were developed by SCAQMD in order to readily determine if the daily emissions of CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 from the Proposed Project could result in a significant impact to the local air quality. The emission thresholds were calculated based on the South Coastal Los Angeles County source receptor area, a disturbance of 1 acre, and based on the allowable emissions thresholds for CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 at 25 meters (80 feet). Sensitive receptors are as near as 21 meters (70 feet) from proposed construction activities; however, according to the LST methodology, any receptor located closer than 25 meters shall be evaluated based on the 25-meter thresholds. Table 8 shows the onsite emissions from the CalEEMod model for the different construction phases and the calculated emissions thresholds.

Table 8 – Short-term Local Emissions at the Nearest Sensitive Receptor

Activity On Site Pollutant Emissions in pounds/day

NOx CO PM10 PM2.5

Demolition 23.64 13.72 2.17 1.58 Auditorium Renovation 15.98 9.43 1.09 1.00 Painting 2.57 1.90 0.22 0.22 SCAQMD Threshold for 25 meters (80 feet) or less1 57 585 4 3 Exceed? No No No No 1 Construction activities are anticipated to occur as near as 21 meters or 70 feet from nearby sensitive receptors. Source: CalEEMod Version 2013.2, SCAQMD 2008.



The data provided in Table 8 shows that construction-related emissions would not exceed SCAQMD’s local air concentration thresholds. In addition, construction emissions would be short-term, limited only to the period when construction activity is taking place. Therefore, construction-related local air concentrations would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Impacts would be less than significant.

It is not anticipated that the Proposed Project would increase long-term operational emissions at Long Beach Polytechnic High School. The Proposed Project would not increase the capacity of the school, nor would it increase the number of activities that would occur at the Auditorium Building. Therefore, long-term operational emissions would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Impacts would be less than significant.

c) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the air basin is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

Less than Significant Impact. Cumulative analysis of air quality impacts must include local development, regional growth within the SCAB, other construction projects occurring within the same footprint or at the same time as the Proposed Project, and emissions from mobile sources. Additionally, wind patterns can disperse pollutants beyond the immediately surrounding area. Therefore, cumulative analysis of air quality impacts must be regional in nature to capture all potential sources of pollution. As noted in Table 4 above, the Proposed Project area is out of attainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5.

As shown above in (b), short-term construction and long-term operational emissions from the Proposed Project would not exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants. Accordingly, net increases of nonattainment criteria pollutants would not be significant for the Proposed Project. Impacts would be less than significant.

d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Potentially

Significant Impact




Impact No

Impact

Less than Significant Impact. As shown above in (b), local concentrations of emissions have been calculated for construction activities. The analysis above found that less than significant criteria pollutant concentrations would occur during construction of the Proposed Project. The analysis above also found that no increase in long-term operational emissions is anticipated to occur from the Proposed Project. Accordingly, the Proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Impacts would be less than significant.



e) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Potentially

Significant Impact




Impact No

Impact

Less than Significant Impact. Minor sources of odors associated with construction of the Proposed Project would be primarily associated with the diesel equipment and application of materials such as asphalt for roofs and pavement. The objectionable odors that may be produced during the construction process are short-term in nature, and the odor emissions are expected to cease upon the drying or hardening of the odor-producing materials. Therefore, a less than significant odor impact would occur from construction of the Proposed Project.

The long-term operation of the Proposed Project would not include any sources of odors. Therefore, a less than significant odor impact would occur from operation of the Proposed Project. Accordingly, impacts related to odors would be less than significant for the Proposed Project.

5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Biological resources include habitats and vegetative communities, migratory corridors, plants, wildlife, fisheries, special status species (regulated by a law, regulation, or policy, such as threatened and endangered species), and waters of the United States. The Long Beach Polytechnic High School campus is a developed site and is located in an urbanized area in the City of Long Beach. Campus vegetation is limited to ornamental landscaping.

5.4.1 Evaluation

a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

No Impact. Long Beach Polytechnic High School is an existing school campus located in an urbanized area. Campus vegetation is limited to ornamental landscaping. No candidate, sensitive, or special status species are known to exist on or around the Long Beach Polytechnic High School campus (Chambers Group 2011). Additionally, the Open Space and Recreation Element of the City of Long Beach General Plan does not identify Long Beach Polytechnic High School as open space for the preservation of natural resources (City of Long Beach 2012). Therefore, no impact would result.



b) Would the project 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?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

No Impact. Long Beach Polytechnic High School is an existing campus located in an urbanized area. Campus vegetation is limited to ornamental landscaping. No riparian habitats or other sensitive natural community is known to exist on the Proposed Project site. No wetlands exist on or around Long Beach Polytechnic High School and no adverse effects on any riparian habitat identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or United States Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) will occur. Therefore, no impact would result.

c) Would the project 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?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

No Impact. Long Beach Polytechnic High School is an existing campus in an urbanized area. Campus vegetation is limited to ornamental landscaping. No wetlands are known to exist on the site. Therefore, no impact would result.

d) Would the project 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?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

Less than Significant Impact. Long Beach Polytechnic High School is an existing campus in an urbanized area. No native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, established wildlife corridors, or native wildlife nursery sites are known to exist on the site. In addition, as part of the Proposed Project design features, the District is not removing any trees onsite; and BMPs are included to protect the existing trees and landscaping. A less than significant impact would occur.



e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

No Impact. Section 14.28 of the Long Beach Municipal Code and the City of Long Beach Public Works Department’s Tree Maintenance Policy provides guidelines to ensure the preservation and protection of the City’s trees and those trees located within the public rights-of-way. In addition, as part of the Proposed Project design features, the District is not removing any trees onsite; and BMPs are included to protect the existing trees and landscaping. No impact would occur.

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?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

No Impact. The Proposed Project site is not within a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The County of Los Angeles Department of Regional Planning has designated specific areas as Significant Ecological Areas (SEA). The Proposed Project site is not located within or proximate to any SEA or any other sensitive habitats (LACDRP 2009); therefore, no impacts would occur.

5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Cultural resources include archaeological and paleontological artifacts, including human remains, geologic features, historical buildings and structures, and Native American remains and artifacts. CEQA defines cultural resources as:

Resources listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code 5024.0, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq.);

Resources included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, will be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public Agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant; and

Any object, building structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be a historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource will be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code, 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852).



Impacts to cultural resources include physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired.

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (Standards) are codified at 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 67.7. In most circumstances, the Standards are relevant in assessing whether a substantial adverse change under CEQA would occur. Section 15064.5b(3) of the CEQA Guidelines states in part that “. . . a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer, shall be considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historic resource,” and therefore, may be considered categorically exempt.

The Proposed Project was reviewed for its historical significance and for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards by PCR in June 2013 (Appendix B).

The Auditorium Building was evaluated at the federal and state level as a potential historical resource. At the preliminary level, the property’s architectural associations appear to rise to the threshold of significance for both the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR).

5.5.1 Evaluation

a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in significance of a historical resource as defined in State CEQA Section 15064.5?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Auditorium Building was found to have characteristics that are considered to be historically significant. The Auditorium Building incorporates design elements from both Streamline Moderne and Art Deco. The interior of the Auditorium Building includes some Mediterranean Revival-style character-defining features from the 1930 Auditorium that survived the earthquake, along with Moderne elements from the redesign in 1935.

The Auditorium Building is architecturally unique, as it spans two distinct architectural traditions, the Mediterranean Revival Style and the Works Progress Administration (WPA) Moderne Style. The character-defining features of the interior of the Auditorium include the balcony, original wood seats and their decorative cast steel frame, the wood doors in the balcony lobby, concrete stairs covered with green linoleum on both the east and west sides of the lobby spaces, ground floor red-clay tile flooring and wall veneer, wood wall display cases with decorative trim, niches, drinking fountains, signage, ground floor wood panel entrance doors into the Auditorium, ground floor wood panel bathroom doors, ground floor wood panel ticket office doors, and ground floor seats with their metal frame and with the letters “PHS.”

The seismic improvements and modernization of the interior of Long Beach Polytechnic High School would largely be conducted according to the guidelines set forth in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and are expected to constitute an overall improvement in the condition of the historic



building. Overall, the Auditorium will continue to be used as it was historically; and the proposed seismic improvements and general upgrades would protect the historic, character-defining features of the Auditorium Building. Some character-defining features would be lost through implementation of the Proposed Project: historic seats on the ground floor and balcony are scheduled for refurbishment; the balcony will be removed; the north stair connecting the main lobby to the balcony lobby will be altered; and portions of the tile flooring on the north and south sides of the lobby will be removed. Implementation and completion of the Mitigation Measures described below would reduce impacts on the Auditorium to a level less than significant. While some loss of the character-defining features and spaces would occur, the overall impact to the historical integrity of the property is minimal, and the historic significance of the property is unchanged. In addition, the Mitigation Measures that address recordation and photography at the site as well as demolition and construction monitoring will ensure that the appropriate preservation is properly completed. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measures C-1 and C-2, the Proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in significance of a historical resource. A less than significant impact would occur with mitigation incorporation.

Mitigation Measure C-1: Recordation and Photography. Prior to construction, a Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) Level III recordation shall be prepared. The existing condition of the Auditorium shall be documented in as-built drawings, large-format black-and-white photographs, and a written narrative in accordance with HABS requirements. Completion of the HABS Level III recordation should be implemented before commencement of construction activities. This documentation shall be prepared by a qualified architectural historian or historic architect and a photographer experienced in HABS photography. Original archival prints shall be submitted to the Library of Congress, the California Office of Historic Preservation, and the Long Beach Unified School District Archive.

Mitigation Measure C-2: Demolition and Construction Monitoring. Due to the complexity of the balcony removal and elevator shaft construction, potential damage may occur to historic, character-defining features of the Auditorium. The Proposed Project shall be designed to minimize the potential for damage to historic materials and features. Demolition plans shall be prepared for the Proposed Project and reviewed by a qualified preservation consultant. The Proposed Project shall also be conditioned to require construction monitoring by a qualified preservation consultant to ensure conformance to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and to ensure that the appropriate preservation treatment for any unanticipated preservation issues encountered during demolition/construction is properly evaluated and completed.

b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to State CEQA Section 15064.5?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

No Impact. No known archaeological resources are located on the Proposed Project site. In addition, if any archaeological resources are encountered during construction activities, the District’s Construction BMPs (see Section 2.5.3) related to cultural resources will be followed. Therefore, no impacts are expected.



c) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

No Impact. No known paleontological resources or unique geologic features are located on the Proposed Project site. The Proposed Project site is located in an urbanized area previously disturbed by past activities. In addition, if any paleontological resources are encountered during construction activities, the District’s Construction BMPs (see Section 2.5.3) related to cultural resources will be followed. Therefore, no impacts are expected.

d) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

No Impact. No known human remains are located in the Proposed Project area. The Proposed Project site is located in an urbanized area previously disturbed by past activities. In addition, if any human remains are encountered during construction activities, the District’s Construction BMPs (see Section 2.5.3) related to cultural resources and procedures required by state law will be followed. Therefore, no impacts are expected.

5.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

Informed land-use decisions require information about California’s geologic and seismic hazards, such as surface rupture, ground failure, landslides, liquefaction, soil erosion, and subsidence. The California Geological Survey (CGS) provides technical information and advice about landslides, erosion, sedimentation, and other geologic hazards to the public, local governments, agencies, and industries that make land-use decisions in California. Surface rupture is the breakage of ground along the surface trace of a fault caused by the intersection of the fault surface area ruptured in an earthquake. Liquefaction is a process by which water-saturated granular soils transform from a solid to a liquid state during strong ground-shaking. A seismically induced landslide is a general term for a falling, sliding, or flowing mass of soil, rocks, water, and debris caused by an earthquake. Erosion is displacement of soil, usually by moving water and wind.

The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed in 1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to structures for human occupancy. This state 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. The Act's main purpose is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The Act addresses only the hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards. The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, passed in 1990, addresses nonsurface fault rupture earthquake hazards, including liquefaction and seismically induced landslides.

During the design phase of the Proposed Project, a detailed geologic investigation was performed, including subsurface exploration and laboratory testing (PETRA 2013). The geotechnical evaluation was performed in accordance with the guidelines of the California Geological Survey (2005) for Engineering



Geology and Seismology Reports for California Public Schools. The following discussions are summarized from the Design-Phase Engineering Geologic Investigation, Proposed Seismic Mitigation for Existing Auditorium Building at Polytechnic High School, 1600 Atlantic Avenue, Long Beach, California (PETRA 2013), included as Appendix C to this document.

5.6.1 Evaluation

a) Would the project result in exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as

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


Impact




Impact No

Impact

Less than Significant Impact. Although the Proposed Project is located within a seismically active region of southern California, the site is not located within a state-designated Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone. The Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone prevents construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The nearest designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone is the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone, which is approximately 2 kilometers northeast of the Proposed Project site (PETRA 2013). Furthermore, the Proposed Project involves seismic upgrades to the Auditorium Building. The Proposed Project upgrades will conform to current applicable building and seismic safety codes. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant.

ii) Strong seismic ground-shaking? Potentially Significant

Impact




Impact No

Impact

Less than Significant Impact. The most significant seismic hazard affecting the Proposed Project area is ground-shaking from a major earthquake. The Proposed Project site is not located within a State of California or Los Angeles County designated Earthquake Fault Rupture Hazard Zone for active surface faulting (PETRA 2013). The Proposed Project involves upgrades, including seismic upgrades, to existing buildings. These upgrades will conform to current building and seismic safety codes mandated by the California Department of Education. A less than significant impact would occur.



iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Potentially

Significant Impact




Impact No

Impact

No Impact. As indicated in the City of Long Beach General Plan Seismic Element and the Geologic Hazards Evaluation, the Proposed Project site is not located in an area that would be prone to liquefaction. In addition, based on a site-specific analysis, the site is not susceptible to liquefaction (PETRA 2013). No impact would occur.

iv) Landslides? Potentially Significant

Impact




Impact No

Impact

No Impact. The Proposed Project site is not located in a City of Long Beach Landslide Inventory and Hillside Area (PETRA 2013). The Proposed Project site has been previously graded and developed and is not adjacent to a hillside. Therefore, no impact would result.

b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Potentially

Significant Impact




Impact No

Impact

Less than Significant Impact. Most of the Proposed Project site is currently paved and developed. The relatively flat and paved nature of the Proposed Project site limits its susceptibility to erosion; however, construction of the Proposed Project would require some ground disruption activities including the removal of a concrete walkway. Any ground-disturbing activities would involve less than 1 acre, and most of the Proposed Project work involves upgrades within the interiors of the existing Auditorium Building. Due to the nature of the area and the limited amount of disturbance, the potential for soil erosion or loss of topsoil would be minimal and not substantial. Therefore, less than significant impacts would result.

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 onsite or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

No Impact. The Proposed Project site has been previously graded and developed and is not situated on a slope or hillside. Additionally, the Proposed Project is not located in an area that would be prone to liquefaction or collapse. Therefore, no impact would result.



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?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project site has been previously graded and developed. The site is located on land that consists of semi-consolidated marine to nonmarine terrace deposits consisting of interlayered silt, sand, and clay. The native materials are capped locally by artificial fill where previously existing natural grades have been modified as part of urbanization. Based on the site-specific analysis, the site is not likely to be subject to expansive soils (PETRA 2013). With the application of the recommendations for earthwork, foundations, pavements, and other pertinent geotechnical design considerations from the detailed geotechnical evaluation that were incorporated into the project design, any impact associated with expansive soils will be less than significant.

e) Would the project 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?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

No Impact. The Proposed Project area relies on sewers for wastewater disposal. Therefore, no impacts will occur.

5.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

This section describes the potential global climate change effects from implementation of the Proposed Project. Chambers Group performed construction greenhouse gas (GHG) emission modeling through use of the CalEEMod Version 2013.2. The model output is provided in Appendix D.

5.7.1 Evaluation

a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

Less than Significant Impact. Significant legislative and regulatory activities directly and indirectly affect climate change and GHGs in California. The primary climate change legislation in California is AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 focuses on reducing GHG emissions in California, and AB 32 requires that GHGs emitted in California be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020.

The CARB is the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of emissions of GHGs in California that contribute to global warming in order to reduce emissions of GHGs. The CARB Governing



Board approved the 1990 GHG emissions level of 427 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent (MtCO2e) on December 6, 2007. Therefore, in 2020, annual emissions in California are required to be at or below 427 MtCO2e. The CARB Board approved the Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) in December 2008. The Scoping Plan defines a range of programs and activities that will be implemented primarily by state agencies but also includes actions by local government agencies. Primary strategies addressed in the Scoping Plan include new industrial and emission control technologies; alternative energy generation technologies; advanced energy conservation in lighting, heating, cooling, and ventilation; reduced-carbon fuels; hybrid and electric vehicles; and other methods of improving vehicle mileage. Local government will have a part in implementing some of these strategies. The Scoping Plan also calls for reductions in vehicle-associated GHG emissions through smart growth that will result in reductions in vehicle miles traveled (CARB 2008).

The CalEEMod model used above to calculate the criteria pollutant emissions was also utilized to calculate the GHG emissions associated with construction of the Proposed Project (see Appendix D). The CalEEMod model calculated that construction activities would generate 246.34 MTCO2e. The Proposed Project would not increase the capacity of the school nor would it increase the number of activities that would occur at the Auditorium Building. No increases in long-term operational GHG emissions are anticipated to occur from the Proposed Project.

Although the City of Long Beach does not have an established threshold for GHGs, this analysis proposes to use the “Tier 3” quantitative threshold for all land use projects, as recommended by SCAQMD (SCAQMD 2010). SCAQMD proposes that project GHG emissions below 3,000 MTCO2e would not be “cumulatively considerable” and therefore would be less than significant under CEQA. Therefore, the Proposed Project’s GHG contribution of 246.34 MTCO2e is not “cumulatively considerable,” and impacts 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?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

Less than Significant Impact. Neither the City nor SCAQMD have any specific plans, policies, or regulations adopted for reducing the emissions of GHGs. Since no net increase in long-term, operational GHG emissions would occur from the Proposed Project and the construction emissions are short-term, the Proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for reducing the emissions of GHGs. Impacts would be less than significant.

5.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

The Proposed Project construction activities and site were analyzed to determine the potential for hazards or hazardous materials to occur onsite. Background research included an evaluation of the Geotracker and Envirostor websites, operated by the State Water Resources Control Board and the Department of Toxic Substances Control, respectively.



5.8.1 Evaluation

a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The Proposed Project would involve the use of heavy equipment during construction that would emit emissions associated with internal combustion engines, i.e., diesel and gasoline. Once operational, the Proposed Project would use chemicals associated with janitorial and maintenance operations, including commercial cleansers, lubricants, solvents, and paints. Janitorial and maintenance materials would not be considered acutely hazardous and would be used in limited quantities at the Proposed Project site. Compliance with the existing regulations, including the manufacturer’s product label, would ensure that no significant hazard to the public, the students, or the environment would result through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. A less than significant impact would occur.

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?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Hazardous materials inspections for asbestos-containing materials (ACM) and lead-based paint (LBP) conducted by Alta Environmental in September 2012 (Appendix E) identified the presence and quantity of ACM and LBP in the Auditorium Building. These materials will be abated in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Abatement Plan for Removal of Hazardous Materials prepared for the Proposed Project, which is included as Appendix G of this Initial Study. Compliance with federal and state law ensures that, prior to demolition, alteration, or renovation, (1) proper notification is given to the SCAQMD (regulates airborne pollutants) and the local California Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) office; (2) the District will certify that ACMs have been removed or mitigated by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor certified by the State of California Contractors Licensing Board; and (3) the District will institute an operations and maintenance (O&M) program so that ACMs that are not damaged or LBPs that will remain in place are properly managed to prevent exposure to hazardous materials. Because these permitting requirements automatically apply to Proposed Project development, they are considered standard conditions for approval of the Proposed Project that will reduce potential effects to a less than significant level during construction and operation (Alta Environmental 2012).

Additionally, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared in December 2013. This assessment identified areas of concern on the project site (Appendix F). In consideration of the areas of concern found in the Phase I, a limited subsurface investigation was completed on October 23, 2013, and October 26, 2013. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Addendum was prepared at the request of the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to present intial findings of the PEA Equivalent.



Soil sampling was performed to assess the potential impacts in shallow soils around the existing buildings from lead-based paint (LBP), asbestos containing building materials (ACBMs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides and/or termiticides, and the historical presence of two offsite service stations and an auto repair shop. During the sampling process, it was determined that arsenic, asbestos, organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), and organophosphorous compounds (OPCs) did not pose a significant risk of exposure as these materials were either not detected during sampling, or were found to be below acceptable levels. The PEA Equivalent concluded that elevated levels of lead and PCBs in shallow soils around the existing buildings would require further evaluation. The PEA Equivalent is appended as Appendix F and will be reviewed by DTSC for approval. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, below, will mitigate the potential impacts from lead and PCBs to less than significant with the implementation of a Removal Action Workplan (RAW).

Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: A Removal Action Workplan (RAW) will be prepared for the project site outlining measures for the remediation of soils. The RAW will be prepared under the direction of DTSC, and DTSC will certify that all necessary remedial actions have been completed in accordance with the approved RAW.

The RAW will include a description of the onsite impact, a plan for conducting the removal action, and goals to be achieved by the removal action, as required by the California Health and Safety Code Section 25323.1. The RAW will also include site-specific Removal Action Objectives (RAOs) established to protect human health and the environment. The goal of the removal action is for all significantly affected soil to be excavated, removed from the site, and treated and/or disposed of offsite. Specifically, the RAW will focus on the removal and disposal of environmentally affected soils to reduce the threat to human health, safety, and the environment and to provide a permanent solution that reduces the toxicity, mobility, and volume of affected soil. Following completion of removal and remediation activities, as part of the No Further Action Decision, DTSC would certify that all necessary remedial actions have been completed in accordance with the approved RAW, and that, following implementation of the RAW, site conditions would not pose a significant risk to human health, safety, or the environment. The No Further Action Determination would be required before construction could begin.

During the construction phase of the Proposed Project, diesel and/or other construction equipment and vehicle fuels would be used; however, the transport, storage, and usage of hazardous materials such as fuels are regulated by the state and would be in compliance with all state regulations during construction.

With the implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, which includes the RAW and the removal of the impacted soil in accordance with state and federal standards, and application of the procedures outlined in the abatement workplan, impacts related to hazardous conditions at the site would be less than significant.

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?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Proposed Project involves upgrades to the Auditorium Building at the existing Long Beach Polytechnic High School. Additionally, Roosevelt Elementary School is



located across the street from the Proposed Project site. The Proposed Project would involve the use of heavy equipment during construction that would emit emissions associated with internal combustion engines, i.e., diesel and gasoline. Once operational, the Proposed Project would involve the use of chemicals associated with janitorial and maintenance operations which would be subject to federal, state, and local health and safety requirements. As discussed above, the PEA Equivalent concluded that elevated levels of lead and PCBs would require further evaluation. A PEA Equivalent is appended as Appendix F and will be reviewed by DTSC for approval. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, in Section 5.8 (b) above, will mitigate the potential impacts from lead and PCBs to less than significant with the implementation of a Removal Action Workplan (RAW). All hazards and hazardous materials onsite will be mitigated to a less than significant level under the guidance of the DTSC in the cleanup of lead and PCBs in the soils onsite.

d) Would the project 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?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

Less than Significant Impact. The site was evaluated according to Government Code Section 65962.5. The Proposed Project site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites. The closest hazardous materials site is located at 1574 Linden Avenue at Roosevelt Elementary School and was a school investigation site; however, the case was closed in 2012 (Geotracker 2013; Envirostor 2013). A Phase I Addendum with Near Surface Soil Sampling Investigation was conducted for Roosevelt Elementary School (PETRA 2011). The assessment did not identify evidence of any recognized environmental conditions following the California Environmental Protection Agency Department of Toxic Substances Control recommended school guidance for Phase I assessments. Recognized environmental conditions are defined by the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) as any hazardous substance or petroleum product under conditions that indicate an existing, past, or material threat of release into the structures, ground, groundwater, or surface water at the subject site (PETRA 2011). This site poses no threat to the safety of the Proposed Project site. A less than significant impact would occur.

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 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?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

No Impact. The Proposed Project site is located approximately 2.9 miles southwest of Long Beach Municipal Airport. The Proposed Project site is not located within any of the nine Runway Protection Zones (RPZ) identified in the Airport Influence Area of Long Beach Municipal Airport (Los Angeles County 2003). Therefore, no impacts are expected to occur.



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?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

No Impact. No private airports or airstrips are located in the vicinity of the Proposed Project site. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in an airplane safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. No impact would occur.

g) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project site is already developed, and the Proposed Project involves upgrades to the Auditorium Building on the existing school grounds. The upgraded buildings, use of buildings, and school population will not create interference with established emergency response or emergency evacuation plans. A less than significant impact would occur.

h) 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?


Impact




Impact

No

Impact

No Impact. The Proposed Project is located in an urbanized area of the City of Long Beach that does not include wildlands or high fire hazard terrain or vegetation. Therefore, the Proposed Project will not expose persons or structures to the risk of wildland fires. No impact would occur.

5.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Hydrology is the study of the movement, distribution, and quality of water throughout the Earth, and thus addresses both the hydrologic cycle and water resources. Water quality is the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of water, characterized through the methods of hydrometry. The primary bases for such characterization are parameters which relate to drinking water, safety of human contact, and the health of ecosystems.

A seiche is a standing wave in an enclosed or partially enclosed body of water.

A tsunami is a series of waves created when a body of water, such as an ocean, is rapidly displaced.

A mudflow or mudslide is the most rapid (up to 80 kilometers per hour) and fluid type of downhill mass wasting.



5.9.1 Evaluation

a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Potentially

Significant Impact




Impact No

Impact

Less than Significant Impact. Short-term impacts to site drainage during construction periods will be mitigated through industry standard BMPs. The Proposed Project would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Construction activities would result in a minor amount of soil disturbance. If soil is not contained and is directly exposed to rain, soil erosion and sediment could flow into the storm drain system, resulting in the potential degradation of water quality. Erosion and sediment control measures would be implemented as part of the Proposed Project. Since the upgrades are to existing buildings and the upgrades are mostly to the interiors of the buildings, no long-term impacts would result. A less than significant impact would occur.

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)?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

No Impact. The Proposed Project would provide upgrades to the existing Auditorium Building. The existing Proposed Project site is currently predominantly covered with impervious surfaces. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not substantially increase areas of impervious surfaces and would not interfere with groundwater recharge. Additionally, the Proposed Project is intended to serve the existing school population; therefore, the Proposed Project would not require additional water resources. The Proposed Project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level would occur. Therefore, no impacts would result.

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?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

No Impact. The Proposed Project site is in an urbanized location. Most of the Proposed Project site is currently paved or covered with impervious surfaces. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not substantially increase areas of impervious surfaces at the Proposed Project site. In addition, the drainage



pattern of the Proposed Project site and surrounding area is established, and no streams or rivers are located on or near the Proposed Project site. The drainage system for the City of Long Beach is also established. Therefore, no impacts will occur to the drainage pattern, and the Proposed Project will not result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site.

d) 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, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or off site?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

No Impact. The Proposed Project site is in an urbanized location. The Proposed Project will not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. In addition, the drainage pattern of the Proposed Project site and surrounding area is established; and no streams or rivers are located on or near the Proposed Project site. The drainage system for the City of Long Beach is also established. Therefore, the Proposed Project is not expected to substantially increase surface runoff in a manner that 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 stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

No Impact. The Proposed Project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing stormwater drainage systems or provide additional sources of polluted runoff. Impervious surfaces such as buildings and paved parking lots can increase runoff rates through impeding infiltration of rainfall and increasing overland flow velocities. Most of the Proposed Project site is currently paved. Consequently, the Proposed Project is not expected to create or contribute surface runoff volume that would exceed the capacity of the existing stormwater drainage systems. No impacts would result.

f) Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Potentially

Significant Impact




Impact No

Impact

Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project involves upgrades and retrofits to the existing Auditorium Building. The drainage patterns of the site would not be substantially altered from existing conditions, and the Proposed Project would not be expected to degrade water quality. With implementation of the BMPs, impacts 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?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

No Impact. The Proposed Project does not involve the construction of housing. No impact would occur.

h) Would the project place within a 100-year flood plain structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? Potentially

Significant Impact




Impact No

Impact

No Impact. The Proposed Project site is not located in a Flood Hazard Zone or 100-year or 500-year flood plain (FEMA 2013). No impact would occur.

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?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project is not located within a dam inundation area. The site does border an area that may be impacted by a failure of the Whittier Narrows Dam due to a seismic event. Due to infrequent periods of high precipitation and high river flow, the probability of flooding as a result of seismically induced failure of this dam while at full capacity is considered very low (City of Long Beach 2004). Impacts would be less than significant.

j) Wo uld the project resu l t in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Potentially

Significant Impact




Impact No

Impact

No Impact. Seiches or mudflows are not hazards in the Proposed Project area. The Proposed Project site is located approximately 2 miles inland and is not located in an inundation or tsunami hazard area (City of Long Beach 2004). Therefore, no impacts will occur.

k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project involves upgrades and retrofits to the existing Auditorium Building. The drainage site would not be substantially altered from existing conditions, and



the Proposed Project would not be expected to impact stormwater runoff. Since BMPs will be included as part of the Proposed Project, impacts will be less than significant.

l) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post-construction activities?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

No Impact. The Proposed Project site is in an urbanized location, and stormwater drainage systems are already located in the vicinity of the Proposed Project site. No increase in impervious surfaces will occur as a result of the Proposed Project. Therefore, no impact would occur.

m) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks, or other outdoor work areas?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project involves upgrades and retrofits to the existing Auditorium Building. The drainage site would not be substantially altered from existing conditions, and the Proposed Project would not be expected to result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants. The implementation of BMPs will minimize any potential impacts from pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance, waste handling, delivery areas, loading docks, or other outdoor work areas to less than significant.

n) Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts to stormwater discharge during construction. The short-term construction impacts would be minimized with the implementation of BMPs. Therefore, downstream beneficial uses would not be significantly impacted by the Proposed Project.



o) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

Less than Significant Impact. Impervious surfaces such as buildings and paved parking lots can increase runoff rates through impeding infiltration of rainfall and increasing overland flow velocities. Most of the Proposed Project site is currently paved. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not substantially increase areas of impervious surfaces and would not generate substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The Proposed Project is not expected to create or contribute surface runoff volume that would exceed the capacity of the existing stormwater drainage systems. Impacts would be less than significant.

p) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

Less than Significant Impact. The drainage pattern of the Proposed Project site and surrounding area is established, and no streams or rivers are located on the Proposed Project site or near the Proposed Project site. The Proposed Project would involve a limited amount of ground disturbance, as most of the work would include upgrades to the interior of the Auditorium Building. Impacts regarding erosion within the project site and the surrounding area would be less than significant.

5.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING

Cities and counties “plan” in order to identify important community issues (such as new growth, housing needs, and environmental protection), project future demand for services (such as sewer, water, roads, etc.), anticipate potential problems (such as overloaded sewer facilities or crowded roads), and establish goals and policies for directing and managing growth. Local governments use a variety of tools in the planning process including the general plan, specific plans, zoning, and the subdivision ordinance.

The Proposed Project site is located within an area designated by the City of Long Beach General Plan as Institutional, which allows educational land uses. The zoning for the Proposed Project site is Institutional, which also allows public and private educational land uses by right (without a Conditional Use Permit). Land uses adjacent to the Proposed Project site include other school buildings on site, Roosevelt Elementary School (to the west), mixed retail (to the west), residential (to the south), park facilities (to the east), moderate-density residential (to the east), and townhomes (to the north).



5.10.1 Evaluation

a) Would the project physically divide an established community? Potentially

Significant Impact




Impact No

Impact

No Impact. The Proposed Project will be located on a site that has been in use as a public school since the 1930s. The Proposed Project will continue the longstanding presence of an educational institution at the Proposed Project site. The Proposed Project would not change the land uses currently existing at the site or create an incompatible use. The continued use of the site as a school campus would not result in a new barrier in the community that would physically divide the established surrounding community. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not physically divide an established community, and no impacts will result.

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?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

No Impact. As described above, the Proposed Project site is located within an area designated by the General Plan as Institutional, which allows educational land uses. The zoning for the Proposed Project site is Institutional, which also allows public and private educational land uses by right (without a Conditional Use Permit). The Proposed Project would not result in a change to the existing land use or zoning designations. Therefore, the Proposed Project does not conflict with the land use plan, and no impacts will result.

c) Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

No Impact. No habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan is within the Proposed Project area (Los Angeles County 2003). Therefore, no impacts will occur.

5.11 MINERAL RESOURCES

Mineral resources are commercially viable mineral or aggregate deposits such as sand, gravel, and other construction aggregate. The California Geological Survey provides objective geologic expertise and information about California’s diverse nonfuel mineral resources. Maps, reports, and other data products developed by the staff assist governmental agencies, mining companies, consultants, and the



public in recognizing, developing, and protecting important mineral resources. The California Department of Conservation protects mineral resources to ensure adequate supplies for future production. The California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) was developed to encourage production and conservation of mineral resources, prevent or minimize adverse effects to the environment, and protect public health and safety.

5.11.1 Evaluation

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? Potentially

Significant Impact




Impact No

Impact

No Impact. The Proposed Project would not 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. The primary mineral resource in the City of Long Beach is petroleum; however, petroleum extraction operations have decreased over the last century as the amount of petroleum has diminished. Although located in an area identified for Oil and Gas Resources, the Proposed Project would not interfere with any petroleum extraction operations, as the Proposed Project site is an existing high school (Los Angeles County 2007). Therefore, no impact would occur.

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?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

No Impact. The Proposed Project would not 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. As stated above, although located in an area identified for Oil and Gas Resources, the Proposed Project would not interfere with any petroleum extraction operations, as the Proposed Project site is an existing high school (LACDRP 2007). The Proposed Project site is also located in an area where urban development has already occurred and, therefore, the surrounding land uses would likely preclude mining in the area. No impact would occur.

5.12 NOISE

5.12.1 Environmental Setting

The Proposed Project is located in the City of Long Beach. The primary noise sources in the Project vicinity are from the operation of vehicles on the nearby roads. The Proposed Project is located approximately 150 feet east of S. Atlantic Avenue and on the north side of E. 15th Street. According to the City’s General Plan, Atlantic Avenue is classified as a Major Avenue with 18,576 vehicles per day; and



E. 15th Street is classified as a Local Street. Figure 4 in the City’s General Plan Noise Element details typical noise contours for roads with 15,000 or more vehicles per day, and it shows that at 100 feet the noise level is 62 dBA and at 200 feet the noise level is 58 dBA. Therefore, the noise at the Proposed Project site is likely in the range of 58 to 62 dBA CNEL.

City of Long Beach Noise Standards

For construction activities within the City of Long Beach, Section 8.80.202 of the Municipal Code exempts construction noise from the City’s exterior and interior noise standards between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays.

Since some construction activities could result in noise levels that could cause harm to the nearby residents, a noise threshold utilizing the OSHA agency limits of noise exposure is used. The use of a significance threshold using an OSHA standard is considered conservative. The OSHA standard limits noise exposure of workers to 90 dB or less over 8 continuous hours. Typical construction activities result in a range of noise levels from operating various pieces of equipment. Typical equipment operating cycles may be used at a full power setting followed by a lower setting. Therefore, noise levels fluctuate during construction activities. For the purpose of this noise impact analysis, noise levels that could expose residents or workers to more than 90 dB for over 8 continuous hours are considered a significant noise impact.

5.12.2 Evaluation

a) Would the project 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?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

Less than Significant Impact. Construction activities would include the seismic retrofit and upgrades to the existing 36,800-square-foot Auditorium Building, including renovation of interior finishes; fire alarm system; electrical infrastructure; light fixtures; and plumbing, mechanical, and sprinkler systems. Construction is anticipated to start as early as Fall 2014 and will be completed over a 15-month period. Construction activities will be limited to the allowable construction times provided in Chapter 8.80.202 of the Long Beach Municipal Code, which restricts construction noise that occurs between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. weekdays, 6:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on Saturdays, or anytime on Sundays.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) compiled noise level data regarding the noise generating characteristics of several different types of construction equipment used during the Central Artery/Tunnel project in Boston. Table 9 below provides a list of the construction equipment measured, along with the associated measured noise emissions and measured percentage of typical equipment use per day. From this acquired data, FHWA developed the Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM). The RCNM, which uses the Spec 721.560 Lmax at 50 feet, has been used to calculate the construction equipment noise emissions (see Appendix H).



Table 9 – Construction Equipment Emissions and Usage Factors

Equipment Acoustical Use Factor1 (Percent)

Spec 721.560 Lmax @ 50 Feet2 (dBA, slow3)

Actual Measured Lmax @ 50 feet4 (dBA, slow)

backhoe 40 80 78 concrete mixer truck 40 85 79 concrete pump 20 82 81 concrete saw 20 90 90 crane 16 85 81 dump truck 40 84 76 flatbed truck 40 84 74 front end loader 40 80 79 generator 50 82 81 Gradall 40 85 83 jackhammer 20 85 89 man lift 20 85 75 mounted impact hammer 20 90 90 ventilation fan 100 85 79 warning horn 5 85 83 welder/torch 40 73 74 1 Acoustical use factor is the percentage of time each piece of equipment is operational during a typical workday. 2 Spec 721.560 is the equipment noise level utilized by the Roadway Construction Noise Model program.

3 The “slow” response averages sound levels over 1-second increments. A “fast” response averages sound levels over 0.125-second increments.

4 Actual Measured is the average noise level measured of each piece of equipment during the Central Artery/Tunnel project in Boston, Massachusetts primarily during the 1990s.

Source: Federal Highway Administration, 2006.

The anticipated construction phases and construction equipment that will be operational during each phase were obtained from the CalEEMod model run calculated in Section 5.3, Air Quality. Each piece of equipment was placed at the minimum distance that construction activities would occur to the single-family and multi-family homes located on the south side of E. 15th Street and as near as 70 feet to the south of the Proposed Project. The results are shown below in Table 10.

Table 10 – Construction Noise Levels

Phase of Construction Nearest Residence Minimum Distance (feet) dBA Leq dBA Lmax

Demolition 70 83 87 Auditorium Renovation 70 81 81 Painting 70 71 75 Source: RCNM Version 1.1.

Table 10 shows that demolition activities would create the highest construction noise levels from the Proposed Project, with an average construction-related noise level of 83 dBA Leq and a maximum noise level of 87 dBA Lmax at the nearby homes to the south of the Proposed Project site. The proposed construction activities would not generate noise levels in excess of the 90 dB standard described above at the nearby homes. Therefore, with compliance of the limitation in construction hours detailed in



Chapter 8.80.202 of the Municipal Code, a less than significant noise impact would occur from construction activities.

The long-term operations of the Proposed Project would not introduce any new noise sources to the Project site. The Proposed Project would not increase the capacity of the school nor would it increase the number of activities that would occur at the Auditorium Building. Therefore, a less than significant noise impact is anticipated from the operation of the Proposed Project. Accordingly, the Proposed Project would not expose persons to noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies.

b) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

Less than Significant Impact. Groundborne vibration is an oscillatory motion that is often described by the average amplitude of its velocity in inches per second or more specifically, peak particle velocity. Groundborne vibration is much less common than airborne noise; the ambient peak particle velocity of a residential area is commonly 0.0003 inch per second or less, well below the threshold of annoyance of 0.02 inch per second for infrequent events. Nonetheless, human reactions to vibration are highly subjective; and even levels below the threshold like rattling of dishes, doors, or fixtures can cause minor annoyances.

Table 11 shows the peak particle velocities of some common construction equipment. The most vibration-causing piece of equipment that may be used during construction of the Proposed Project would be a jackhammer during the demolition phase.

Table 11 – Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Emissions

Equipment Peak Particle Velocity in inches per second at 25 feet Vibration Level (Lv) at 25 feet

pile driver (impact) 0.644 104 pile driver (sonic) 0.170 93 clam shovel drop 0.202 94 hydromill - in soil - in rock

0.008 0.017

66 75

vibratory roller 0.210 94 hoe ram 0.089 87 large bulldozer 0.089 87 caisson drill 0.089 87 loaded truck (off road) 0.076 86 jackhammer 0.035 79 small bulldozer 0.003 58 Source: Federal Transit Administration 2006.



As shown in Table 11, a jackhammer would create a vibration level of 0.035 inch per second at 25 feet. The nearest offsite residential structures are located as near as 70 feet from possible jackhammer operations. Based on typical propagation rates, the vibration level at the nearest offsite residence would be 0.011 inch per second. This is below the 0.02 inch per second threshold of annoyance. Therefore, a less than significant vibration impact would occur from construction of the Proposed Project.

The ongoing operation of the Proposed Project would be limited to the operation of the Auditorium Building that does not include sources of vibration. Therefore, a less than significant vibration impact is anticipated from the operation of the Proposed Project. Accordingly, the Proposed Project would not expose persons to excessive vibration or groundborne noise levels.

c) Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

Less than Significant Impact. As stated previously in (a), the ongoing operation of the Proposed Project would not introduce any new noise sources to the Project site. The Proposed Project would not increase the capacity of the school, nor would it increase the number of activities that would occur at the Auditorium Building. Therefore, a less than significant noise impact is anticipated from the operation of the Proposed Project. Accordingly, the Proposed Project would not create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the Proposed 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?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

Less than Significant Impact. As stated previously in (a), demolition activities would create the highest construction noise levels from the Proposed Project, with an average construction-related noise level of 83 dBA Leq and a maximum noise level of 87 dBA Lmax at the nearby homes to the south of the Proposed Project site. The proposed construction activities would not generate noise levels in excess of the 90 dB standard described above at the nearby homes. Therefore, with compliance of the limitation in construction hours detailed in Chapter 8.80.202 of the Municipal Code, a less than significant noise impact would occur from construction activities. Accordingly, the Proposed Project would not create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the Proposed Project.



e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

No Impact. The Proposed Project site is located approximately 2.9 miles southwest of Long Beach Municipal Airport. The Proposed Project site is located outside the Long Beach Municipal Airport noise contours; and the primary runway at Long Beach Municipal Airport is aligned in a southeast to northwest direction, so aircraft approaches and departures from Long Beach Airport do not typically fly over the Proposed Project site. The Proposed Project would not expose people residing or working in the surrounding area to excessive levels of airport-generated noise. No impact is expected.

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?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

No Impact. The Proposed Project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The Proposed Project would not expose people residing or working in the surrounding area to excessive levels of airport-generated noise. No impact is expected.

5.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING

Population refers to the occupants of housing projects, population indirectly associated with workers or proposed nonresidential projects, or changes in the amount and distribution of population and employment permitted by adoption or revision to a land use plan. Important areas include changes in the number, characteristics, geographical distribution, and timing of new residents directly or indirectly resulting from a project and the degree to which project-related changes are consistent with City, regional, or other adopted population growth policies. Other issues are the degree to which project-related population is already present in the area under analysis (i.e., already residing or working in the area), or whether they represent immigrants.

Housing impacts may result directly from a project which includes housing units or indirectly from revisions to the Housing Element in a General Plan or changes in housing demand associated with new nonresidential development projects.

A project would have a significant adverse impact if it would induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly by proposing new homes and businesses or indirectly through the extension of roads or other infrastructure; displace housing units, causing the construction of replacement housing somewhere else; or displace people, causing the construction of replacement housing somewhere else.



5.13.1 Evaluation

a) Would the project 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)?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

No Impact. The Proposed Project is limited to upgrading the Auditorium Building of Long Beach Polytechnic High School and would not induce population growth in the Proposed Project area nor would it create the need for additional housing. The Proposed Project is intended to serve existing and future students in the local community and would not result in an increase in student enrollment. The Proposed Project would not result in the creation of housing or businesses that would induce or accelerate population growth. Additionally, the Proposed Project would be located on an existing school site and adjacent to a number of roadways that currently serve the site. The Proposed Project site is already served by utilities infrastructure. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not induce substantial population growth in the area.

b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?


Impact

Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation


Impact No

Impact

No Impact. The Proposed Project site does not contain any residences or housing units and does not accommodate residential use; therefore, the Proposed Project would not displace existing people or housing that would necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact would occur.

c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?


Impact



Impact No

Impact

No Impact. The Proposed Project site does not contain any residences or housing units and does not accommodate residential use. The Proposed Project would not involve the displacement of substantial numbers of people that would necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact would occur.

5.14 PUBLIC SERVICES

Public services include fire, police, schools, parks, and libraries. A project would impact a public service if it would result in an increased demand for that service or if the project would result in a hindrance to that service.



5.14.1 Evaluation

a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or 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: Fire Protection?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

No Impact. The Proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities. Fire protection services would be provided by the City of Long Beach Fire Department. Fire Station No. 7 is located approximately 1 mile north of Long Beach Polytechnic High School and would serve as the primary responder to the Proposed Project site (Google Earth 2013). Fire protection service needs are generally related to the size of the population and geographic area served, the number and types of calls for service, and other community and physical characteristics. Because land uses at the Proposed Project site would remain the same as under current conditions, an increase in the demand for fire services resulting from the Proposed Project is not anticipated. The Proposed Project site is located in an urbanized area that is void of any wildlands that may create significant fire risks to the Proposed Project site. In addition, to ensure conformance with state Fire Codes, the Proposed Project would not result in street closures that would result in inadequate access to the Proposed Project site. The Proposed Project would have no significant impacts to fire protection services.

b) Police Protection? Potentially Significant

Impact




Impact No

Impact

No Impact. The Proposed Project would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios for police protection. The District maintains its own safety department to provide security for the schools within its jurisdiction. The District’s School Safety and Emergency Preparedness Department would provide on-campus security for the Proposed Project. The City of Long Beach Police Department would be the secondary provider of law enforcement services to the Proposed Project and would supplement the District’s School Safety and Emergency Preparedness Department as needed. The police substation nearest to the Proposed Project site is located at 2023 Pacific Avenue, approximately 0.67 mile from the Proposed Project site (Google Earth 2013). The Proposed Project would not rely primarily on City of Long Beach Police Department police protection services and would not induce population growth resulting in the need for additional police services. Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in no significant impacts to police protection services both during construction and operation of the Proposed Project.



c) Schools? Potentially Significant

Impact




Impact No

Impact

Less than Significant Impact. Implementation of the Proposed Project would involve updates to the existing Auditorium Building at Long Beach Polytechnic High School. The work would be mostly concentrated in the interior of the buildings and would consist of seismic retrofits, upgrades, and renovations. During construction, these buildings would not be available for school use; however, interim housing for the auditorium uses will be provided. This limitation of use will be short-term; and after Proposed Project construction, the Auditorium would return to its existing uses. No significant impacts to schools are expected.

d) Parks? Potentially Significant

Impact




Impact No

Impact

No Impact. The Proposed Project would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered facilities to maintain acceptable opportunities for parks. The closest parks to the Proposed Project site are the California Recreation Center at 1550 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue and David Burcham Field at Long Beach Polytechnic High School. The Proposed Project would not induce population growth and therefore will not create new residents. As such, the Proposed Project would not increase demand for parks, and no impact to park facilities will occur.

e) Other Public Facilities? Potentially Significant

Impact




Impact No

Impact

No Impact. No other public facilities are anticipated to be impacted by the Proposed Project.

5.15 RECREATION

Recreational facilities include active and passive facilities. Active recreational facilities include parks, tennis and basketball courts, pools, golf courses, and various other facilities. Passive recreational facilities include plazas and other public places.

A project would result in a significant impact on recreational facilities if it would increase the use of existing parks and facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated or if the project included recreational facilities or required construction that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.



5.15.1 Evaluation

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?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

No Impact. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or any other recreational facilities. Two recreational facilities are in close proximity to the Proposed Project site: the California Recreation Center and David Burcham Field, both located within 0.2 mile of the Proposed Project site. The Long Beach Polytechnic High School campus makes use of David Burcham Field, located on its campus; however, it does not currently make use of the California Recreation Center because the high school provides its own recreational facilities for the students. Physical impacts to existing recreational facilities are usually associated with population growth. As discussed above, the Proposed Project would neither directly increase the local population nor would it indirectly induce population growth in the future. The Proposed Project is not expected to have an impact on recreational 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?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

No Impact. The Proposed Project is adjacent to recreational facilities that Long Beach Polytechnic High School provides for its students and would not require the construction or expansion of offsite recreational facilities. Given that the Proposed Project is intended to upgrade school facilities for an existing student population, the Proposed Project would not burden any facility beyond capacity by generating additional recreational users. Long Beach Polytechnic High School already provides recreational facilities for its students and implementation of the Proposed Project would not require the expansion of existing offsite recreational facilities that would result in an adverse physical effect on the environment.

5.16 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

The existing roadway network surrounding the Proposed Project is as follows:

Atlantic Avenue is a north-south arterial roadway that provides four travel lanes, two lanes per direction, with additional left-turn lane pockets at most signalized intersections. On-street parking is generally permitted along portions of the west curb of the roadway.



Jackrabbit Lane is an east-west local street that provides one travel lane in each direction within the vicinity of the Proposed Project site. The street leads onto the Long Beach Polytechnic High School campus, where parking is permitted only within designated spaces.

15th Street is an east-west local street that provides one travel lane in each direction within the vicinity of the Proposed Project site. On-street parking is permitted along both sides of the roadway.

In the City of Long Beach, a traffic impact analysis is required when a proposed project would add 50 or more trips during either the a.m. or p.m. peak hour. The Proposed Project would not result in an increase in the student enrollment or the capacity of the school. Therefore, it was determine that the Proposed Project would not result in any new vehicle trips during project operations. The contruction of the Proposed Project would require a minor amount of construction worker and truck trips, but these trips would occur for a temporary amount of time. As such, it was determined that the Proposed Project would not require a full traffic impact study.

5.16.1 Evaluation

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 nonmotorized 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?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would generate short-term construction trips accessing the site to provide cleanup of contaminated soils onsite and upgrades to the existing Auditorium Building. No increase in operation and maintenance traffic is anticipated. In addition, the Proposed Project would not cause an increase in the number of students at the school and would not increase operational traffic at the site. The temporary and limited increase in construction traffic would not conflict with any applicable plans, ordinances, or policies establishing measures of effectiveness for the circulation systems. As described in Section 2.5.3, if construction activities require the temporary closure of lanes, the District will require the construction contractor to coordinate with the City of Long Beach to develop a traffic management plan for any lane closures and would limit construction in these locations to outside peak travel hours. The development and implementation of the traffic management plan would ensure that a less than significant impact would occur.



b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program including but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would generate a relatively small increase in traffic during construction (e.g., construction workers to/from the site). When construction is completed, the Proposed Project would not result in any significant traffic increase over existing levels. In addition, the Proposed Project would not cause an increase in the number of students at the school and would not increase operational traffic at the site. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not generate traffic that would result in exceedance of a level of significance standard on any designated road or highway. Additionally, the Proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable congestion management program. Impacts would be less than significant.

c) Would the project 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?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

No Impact. The Proposed Project site is located approximately 2.9 miles southwest of Long Beach Municipal Airport. The Proposed Project site is not located within any of the nine Runway Protection Zones (RPZ) identified in the Airport Influence Area of Long Beach Municipal Airport (Los Angeles County 2003). The Proposed Project will have no effect upon air traffic patterns. Therefore, no impacts will 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)?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would not change any roadways and would not involve any incompatible uses. As previously discussed, the contruction contractor would coordinate with the City of Long Beach during construction to develop a traffic management plan for any temporary lane closures and would limit construction in these locations to oustide peak travel hours. The traffic management plan would contain project-specific measures for noticing, signage, policy guidance, and the limitation of lane closures to off-peak hours. Implementation of the traffic management plan would ensure that construction impacts would be less than significant. A less than significant impact would occur.



e) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Potentially

Significant Impact




Impact No

Impact

No Impact. The Proposed Project would occur entirely within the Long Beach Polytechnic High School campus and does not include changes to nearby roadways or emergency access routes. All lanes in the vicinity of the Proposed Project would remain open for emergency use. No impact will occur.

f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

No Impact. The Proposed Project involves upgrades to the existing Auditorium Building at Long Beach Polytechnic High School. The Proposed Project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. No impact would occur.

5.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

Utilities and service systems include potable water and wastewater treatment. The quantity of water consumed and wastewater generated by a project is determined by several factors including the size, type, and characteristics of the project. The need for construction of new or replacement water and wastewater treatment facilities (e.g., reservoirs, storage tanks, water mains, filtration plants, pumps, wells, and other connections or distribution facilities) would depend on the existing capacity and anticipated demand for the project area.

5.17.1 Evaluation

a) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

Less than Significant Impact. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The Proposed Project does not involve increase in student or staff population. Post construction, the generation of wastewater on the Proposed Project site would not differ substantially from existing conditions. Impacts from the Proposed Project would therefore have a less than significant impact on wastewater treatment requirements.



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?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

No Impact. The Long Beach Water Department (LBWD) is responsible for the provision of wastewater treatment facilities that serve the City. Implementation of the Proposed Project does not involve increases in student or staff population. Therefore, the generation of wastewater on the Proposed Project site would not differ substantially from existing conditions. The Proposed Project would have no significant impact on wastewater and water treatment facilities.

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?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

No Impact. The Proposed Project would not require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. The Proposed Project site is located in a developed area of Long Beach and is currently serviced by an existing stormwater collection and conveyance system. Since the Proposed Project site is currently a school facility with existing impervious surfaces (i.e., the school parking lots, existing buildings, and paved surfaces), no substantial increase in runoff is expected to be associated with the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project would have no impact on stormwater drainage facilities.

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?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

No Impact. LBWD is responsible for supplying water within the City limits and for ensuring that the delivered water meets applicable California Department of Health Services standards for drinking water. Since the Proposed Project site is currently serviced by Long Beach water infrastructure, and because the Proposed Project does not involve increases in student or staff population, no substantial increase in water supply requirements is expected. In addition, the District would comply with local, regional, and state water conservation policies and would follow standard BMPs, including Title 22 regulations, in order to reduce water consumption. The Proposed Project would not result in need for new or expanded entitlements.



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?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

No Impact. It is anticipated that no net increase in wastewater generation for the region would occur. Furthermore, the Proposed Project would be located on an existing developed site with established sewer line connections that are currently serviced by the City of Long Beach. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no substantial net increase in impacts to wastewater treatment capacity that would contribute to new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities.

f) Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

Less than Significant Impact. The Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (LACSD) and private waste management collectors and disposal facilities manage solid waste in the county. The LACSD operates a comprehensive solid waste management system that includes three active sanitary landfills, three closed landfills, two materials recovery/transfer stations, three gas-to-energy facilities, a clean-fuel facility, two full-service recycle centers, multiple landfill recycling programs, and, in conjunction with the County's Department of Public Works, an extensive program of household hazardous waste and electronic waste collection round-ups.

The active landfills and the materials recovery/transfer stations receive approximately 19,000 tons of nonhazardous solid waste per day, of which approximately 15,500 tons per day is disposed, with the remainder being reused or recycled. This disposal represents approximately 40 percent of the total solid waste disposed of by the residents and businesses of the county. The remaining 60 percent is disposed of at privately owned landfills. In general, solid waste is hauled directly to Class III landfills, transfer stations, resource recovery centers, and refuse-to-energy facilities.

Construction of the Proposed Project would result in the generation of solid waste including scrap lumber, concrete, residual waste, packaging material, plastics, and vegetation. To ensure optimal diversion of solid waste resources by a project, the District requires its contractors to recycle or salvage nonhazardous waste materials generated during demolition and/or construction, to foster material recovery and reuse, and to minimize disposal in landfills. Furthermore, impacts from construction activities will be short-term and intermittent and will be mitigated by BMPs and compliance with existing state statutes regarding solid waste reduction. With the incorporation of these requirements into the Proposed Project, impacts to landfills resulting from construction of the Proposed Project would be less than significant. The Proposed Project will not involve an increase in student population. Therefore, long-term impacts from the Proposed Project will not result in a significant impact to the solid waste disposal capacity of regional landfills.



g) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?


Impact




Impact

No

Impact

Less than Significant Impact. During construction and operation of the Proposed Project, the District would comply with all city, county, and state solid waste diversion, reduction, and recycling mandates, including compliance with the county-wide Integrated Waste Management Plan (IWMP). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

5.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

5.18.1 Evaluation

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?


Impact




Impact No

Impact

Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Proposed Project will not have a significant impact on any fish, wildlife, or habitat. The Proposed Project will involve the renovation and updating of the existing Auditorium Building.

The seismic improvements and modernization of the interior of the Auditorium Building of Long Beach Polytechnic High School are expected to constitute an overall improvement in the condition of the historic building. Some character-defining features of the building will be lost through implementation of the Proposed Project: historic seats on the ground floor and balcony are scheduled for refurbishment; the balcony will be removed; the north stair connecting the main lobby to the balcony lobby will be altered; and portions of the tile flooring on the north and south sides of the lobby will be removed. Implementation and completion of the Mitigation Measures described above in Section 5.5 would reduce impacts on the Auditorium to a level less than significant. With incorporation of Mitigation Measures C-1 and C-2, impacts will 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)?


Impact



Impact No

Impact

Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would result in temporary impacts to air quality and noise during retrofit and renovation activities. The impacts are short-term and would cease upon completion of construction. In addition, these impacts would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of the District’s construction BMPs (see Section 2.5.3). Therefore, no significant cumulative impact would occur.

c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?


Impact



Impact

No

Impact

Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Proposed Project would result in temporary impacts to air quality and noise during retrofit and renovation activities. The impacts would cease upon completion of construction. In addition, these impacts would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of the District’s construction BMPs (see Section 2.5.3). As discussed above, the PEA Equivalent concluded that elevated levels of lead and PCBs would require further evaluation. A PEA Equivalent is appended as Appendix F and will be reviewed by DTSC for approval. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, in Section 5.8 (b) above, will mitigate the potential impacts from lead and PCBs to less than significant with the implementation of a Removal Action Workplan (RAW). All hazards and hazardous materials (those that are known at this point and those that may be encountered during construction activities) onsite will be mitigated to a less than significant level under the guidance of the DTSC during the onsite soil cleanup Therefore, no significant impact woud occur on human beings.



SECTION 6.0 – SOURCE REFERENCES

The following is a list of references used in the preparation of this document.

Alta Environmental 2012 Hazardous Materials Surveying and Testing. Auditorium and Band Room Buildings,

Polytechnic High School, AB 300 Project. September 2012.

California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2008 Climate Change Scoping Plan – “A Framework for Change.” December 2008.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 2004 Transportation- and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual. June 2004.

2009 Technical Noise Supplement. November.

2013 California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Accessed online July 2013 at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm.

California Geological Survey 2013 Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Maps. Accessed online July 2013 at

http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/ap/ap_maps.htm.

California Resources Agency 2008 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines)

2008. CCR Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15381. Palm Desert, California.

Chambers Group, Inc. (Chambers Group) 2011 Roosevelt Elementary School New Construction Project Initial Study.

City of Long Beach 1973 General Plan. Conservation Element.

1975a General Plan. Noise Element.

1975b General Plan. Scenic Routes Element.

1977 Noise Ordinance. Section 8.06.090 (F).

1989 General Plan. Land Use Element.

1991 General Plan. Transportation Element.

1996 General Plan. Air Quality Element.

1998 General Plan. Seismic Safety Element.

2002 General Plan. Open Space and Recreation Element.

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm�

http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/ap/ap_maps.htm�



2004 General Plan. Public Safety Element.2008). General Plan. Land Use Map.

2010 Sustainable City Action Plan.

2012 General Plan Land Use Map

2013 General Plan. Mobility Element. July.

Envirostor Database (Envirostor) 2013 California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Accessed online July 2013 at

http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/.

Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) 2010 California Resources Agency. Accessed online July 2013 at

ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2010/.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 2013 Accessed at http://www.fema.gov/hazard/flood/info.shtm.

Geotracker 2013 State Water Resources Control Board. Geotracker site. Accessed online July 2013 at

http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.

Google Earth 2013 Accessed via Google Earth software.

Long Beach Fire Department (LBFD) 2011 Website. Accessed at www.longbeach.gov/fire/default.asp.

Los Angeles County 2003 Airport Land Use Commission, Air Influence Area. May.

Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning (LACDRP) 2007 General Plan – Conservation and Open Space Element. Figure 6.6.

2009 “Significant Ecological Areas” figure. December.

2011 Los Angeles County Draft 2035 General Plan. April.

PCR 2014 Project Review for the Proposed State of California Seismic Mitigation Program and

Interior Modernization for the Long Beach Polytechnic High School Auditorium. January.

PETRA 2011 Phase I Addendum with Near Surface Soil Sampling Investigation, Roosevelt Elementary

School (Project #0910-9006-452), Located at 1574 Linden Avenue, Long Beach, California. October 2011.



2013 Design-Phase Engineering Geologic Investigation, Proposed Seismic Mitigation for Existing Auditorium Building at Polytechnic High School, 1600 Atlantic Avenue, Long Beach, California.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 1976 Rule 402 Nuisance, Adopted May 7.

1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook.

1994 SCAQMD Rule 1403

2005 Rule 403 Fugitive Dust, Amended June 3.

2008 Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, Revised July.

2010 Greenhouse Gas CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group Meeting #15. September 28.

2012 Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan. December.

U.S. Department of Transportation 2006 FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide, January.

Weather Channel 2013 Average weather for Long Beach, CA. Accessed at

www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/USCA0632



SECTION 7.0 – REPORT AUTHORS AND CONSULTANTS

Long Beach Unified School District (Lead Agency) Susan Ahn Facilities Project Manager Tracy Nishihira Facilities Consultant

Chambers Group, Inc. (Environmental Consultant) Brian Mooney Director of Environmental Planning Paula Fell Project Manager/Senior Environmental Planner Meghan Directo Associate Environmental Planner Lisa Louie Senior Environmental Planner Greg Tonkovich Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Noise Consultant



This page is intentionally blank.

Date post:	20-Apr-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	6 times
Download:	0 times

DRAFT INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION...

Documents