INTERIM HOUSING AT CHARLES F. KETTERING ELEMENTARY...

August 2017 | Negative Declaration

INTERIM HOUSING AT CHARLES F. KETTERING ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Long Beach Unified School District

Prepared for:

Long Beach Unified School District Contact: Jacquelyn Roberts, Project Manager

Facilities Development and Planning Branch 2425 Webster Avenue

Long Beach, California 90810 562.997.7550

Prepared by:

PlaceWorks Contact: Alice Houseworth, AICP, LEED AP, Senior Associate

3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100 Santa Ana, California 92707

714.966.9220 [email protected] www.placeworks.com

BUSINESS DEPARTMENT – Facilities Development & Planning Office of the Executive Director 2425 Webster Ave., Long Beach, CA 90810 (562) 997-7550 Fax (562) 595-8644

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code (PRC) Sections 2100 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations (CCR) Sections 15000 et seq.), the Long Beach Unified School District has completed this Negative Declaration (ND) for the project described below based on the assessment presented in the attached Initial Study.

LEAD AGENCY & PROJECT PROPONENT: Long Beach Unified School District

PROJECT TITLE: Interim Housing at Charles F. Kettering Elementary School

PROJECT LOCATION: The proposed interim housing and parking lot expansion site is on the southeast corner of Charles F. Kettering Elementary School campus. The approximately 10.32-acre school is at 550 Silvera Avenue, in the southeast portion of the City of Long Beach in Los Angeles County, California.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Long Beach Unified School District is proposing to use the Charles F. Kettering Elementary School campus as interim housing as it modernizes eight elementary schools. The proposed project consists of the installation and use of interim housing (12 temporary portable buildings), expansion of the existing parking lot, widen two driveways and close one driveway at Kettering ES. The temporary portable buildings are required to house students in grades 3, 4, and 5 during modernization of the following eight schools over the next eight years.

Kettering Elementary School 550 Silvera Avenue

Long Beach, CA 90803 (562) 598-9486

Mann Elementary School 257 Coronado Avenue Long Beach, CA 90803

(562) 439-6897

Bixby Elementary School 5251 E Stearns Street

Long Beach, CA 90815 (562) 498-3794

Fremont Elementary School 4000 E Fourth Street

Long Beach, CA 90814 (562) 439-6873

Naples Elementary School 5537 E The Toledo

Long Beach, CA 90803 (562) 433-0489

Bryant Elementary School 4101 E Fountain Street Long Beach, CA 90804

(562) 498-3802

Gant Elementary School 1854 N Britton Drive

Long Beach, CA 90815 (562) 430-3384

Prisk Elementary School 2375 Fanwood Avenue Long Beach, CA 90815

(562) 598-9601

Campus modernizations at each school would include construction such as, HVAC system installation and boiler system decommissioning, electrical upgrades, ADA facility improvements, ceiling repair, and painting. None of the modernizations would increase capacity at any school. Permanent buildings would not be demolished or constructed. With the exception of Kettering ES, all work planned at the seven other schools is considered minor and would not have any direct or indirect effect on the existing environment or surrounding neighborhoods.

Starting in December 2017, Kettering students would be the first to move into the interim housing while modernization activities are underway. Once the Kettering ES modernization is complete, students would move back to their permanent facilities. The seven other schools would continue the process in succession, where students would be bused from their current school to the Kettering ES for school day instruction. In succession over seven years, Grades 3, 4, and 5 at each of the seven schools would be moved off-campus and into the interim housing while the modernization work is being done. To ensure a consistent education, students and teachers would stay together at the interim housing. When construction is complete, the classes for these grades would resume at each school. Students in kindergarten, 1st, and 2nd grades would continue to attend classes at each school. Because modernization work would be conducted in almost all campus buildings, the kindergarten, 1st, and 2nd grade students would use the empty classrooms and portables at each home school while their classrooms are upgraded. The kitchen, cafeteria, and other shared facilities would be upgraded during the summer when students are not in school.

EXISTING CONDITIONS: The proposed interim housing and parking lot expansion site is on the southeast corner of Charles F. Kettering Elementary School campus. The approximately 10.32-acre school is at 550 Silvera Avenue, in the southeast portion of the City of Long Beach in Los Angeles County, California.

DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY: The ND and supporting Initial Study for the Interim Housing at Charles F. Kettering Elementary School project are available for review at the following locations:

• Long Beach Unified School District, Facilities Development and Planning Branch, 2425 Webster Avenue, Long Beach

• Kettering ES, Mann ES, Bixby ES, Fremont ES, Naples ES, Bryant ES, Gant ES, Prisk ES (addresses above)

• Local Libraries: Signal Hill Public Library: 1780 E Hill St., Signal Hill, Ca 90755 Angelo M Lacoboni Library: 4990 Clark Ave., Lakewood, CA 90712 Main Long Beach Public Library: 101 Pacific Avenue, Long Beach, CA 90822 • District Facilities Department website: www.lbschoolbonds.net

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS: The attached Initial Study was prepared to identify the potential effects on the environment from the installation and operation of the interim housing at Kettering ES and to evaluate the significance of those effects. Based on the environmental analysis, the proposed project would have no impacts or less-than-significant environmental impacts related to the following issues:

• Aesthetics • Agriculture and Forestry Resources • Air Quality • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Geology and Soils • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use and Planning • Mineral Resources • Noise • Population and Housing • Public Services • Recreation • Tribal Cultural Resources • Transportation and Traffic • Utilities and Service Systems

Findings. It is hereby determined that, based on the information contained in the attached Initial Study, the project would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment.

http://www.lbschoolbonds.net/

August 2017 | Initial Study

INTERIM HOUSING AT CHARLES F. KETTERING ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Long Beach Unified School District

I N T E R I M H O U S I N G A T C H A R L E S F . K E T T E R I N G E L E M E N T A R Y S C H O O L I N I T I A L S T U D Y L O N G B E A C H U N I F I E D S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

Table of Contents

August 2017 Page i

Section Page

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT .............................................................. 1 1.3 NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND SUPPORTING INITIAL STUDY ............................. 2 1.4 IMPACT TERMINOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 2 1.5 ORGANIZATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY .......................................................................... 2

2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ......................................................................................... 5 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION ...................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 SURROUNDING LAND USE ........................................................................................................ 5 2.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS .............................................................................................................. 6 2.4 GENERAL PLAN AND EXISTING ZONING ......................................................................... 6

3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................ 23 3.1 PROPOSED PROJECT ................................................................................................................... 23 3.1.1 Facilities ................................................................................................................................................ 24 3.1.2 Parking .................................................................................................................................................. 24 3.1.3 Lighting ................................................................................................................................................. 29 3.1.4 Circulation ............................................................................................................................................ 29 3.1.5 Operation ............................................................................................................................................. 30 3.1.6 Construction ........................................................................................................................................ 31 3.2 LEAD AGENCY ............................................................................................................................... 32 3.3 ANTICIPATED AGENCY ACTIONS......................................................................................... 32

4. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST .................................................................................. 33 4.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 33 4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED .......................................... 35 4.3 DETERMINATION ......................................................................................................................... 35 4.4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ............................................................... 36

5. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ..................................................................................... 45 5.1 AESTHETICS .................................................................................................................................... 45 5.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES .................................................................. 46 5.3 AIR QUALITY ................................................................................................................................... 48 5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ......................................................................................................... 54 5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................. 56 5.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ................................................................................................................ 57 5.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ............................................................................................. 60 5.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ....................................................................... 63 5.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .................................................................................. 65 5.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING ..................................................................................................... 68 5.11 MINERAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................ 68 5.12 NOISE .................................................................................................................................................. 69 5.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING ................................................................................................. 79 5.14 PUBLIC SERVICES .......................................................................................................................... 80 5.15 RECREATION .................................................................................................................................. 81 5.16 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ........................................................................................ 82 5.17 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................. 93


Table of Contents

Page ii PlaceWorks

5.18 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ....................................................................................... 94 5.19 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ................................................................... 96

6. LIST OF PREPARERS .................................................................................................. 99 6.1 LEAD AGENCY ............................................................................................................................... 99 6.2 CEQA CONSULTANT .................................................................................................................... 99

APPENDICES

(Provided on the compact disc attached to the back cover)

A. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Background and Modeling Data

B. Noise and Vibration Background and Modeling Data

C. Traffic Study Calculation Worksheets


Table of Contents

August 2017 Page iii

List of Figures

Figure Page

Figure 1 Regional Location ................................................................................................................................. 7 Figure 2 Local Vicinity ......................................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 3 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................ 11 Figure 4 Photo Location Key ........................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 4a Site Photographs ................................................................................................................................. 15 Figure 4b Site Photographs ................................................................................................................................. 17 Figure 4c Site Photographs ................................................................................................................................. 19 Figure 5 Existing Parking Restrictions ............................................................................................................ 21 Figure 6 School Locations ................................................................................................................................. 25 Figure 7 Conceptual Site Plan ........................................................................................................................... 27

List of Tables

Table Page

Table 1 Modernization Schedule .................................................................................................................... 31 Table 2 Anticipated Agency Actions .............................................................................................................. 32 Table 3 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions ....................................................................................... 50 Table 4 Maximum Daily Operation Emissions ............................................................................................ 51 Table 5 Localized Construction Emissions ................................................................................................... 52 Table 6 Project-Related GHG Emissions ..................................................................................................... 61 Table 7 Exterior Noise Limits ......................................................................................................................... 70 Table 8 Interior Noise Limits .......................................................................................................................... 71 Table 9 Background Noise Correction .......................................................................................................... 71 Table 10 Operational Noise Increases ............................................................................................................. 73 Table 11 Project-Related Roadway Noise Level Estimates .......................................................................... 74 Table 12 Construction-Related Vibration ....................................................................................................... 76 Table 13 Project-Related Construction Noise Levels .................................................................................... 78 Table 14 Intersection Level of Service Descriptions ..................................................................................... 83 Table 15 Existing Traffic Conditions ............................................................................................................... 86 Table 16 Project Trip Generation ..................................................................................................................... 87 Table 17 AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes at 5th Street and Silvera Avenue ............................................ 88 Table 18 Traffic Conditions at 5th Street and Silvera Avenue ..................................................................... 89 Table 19 Traffic Conditions at 7th Street / Margo Avenue Intersection................................................... 89


Abbreviations and Acronyms

Page iv PlaceWorks

AAQS ambient air quality standards

AB Assembly Bill

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act

AQMP air quality management plan

AST aboveground storage tank

CalRecycle California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery

Caltrans California Department of Transportation

CARB California Air Resources Board

CBC California Building Code

CCR California Code of Regulations

CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act

CMP congestion management program

CNEL community noise equivalent level

CO carbon monoxide

CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent

dB decibel

dBA A-weighted decibel

DPM diesel particulate matter

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FTA Federal Transit Administration

GHG greenhouse gases

HVAC heating, ventilating, and air conditioning system

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

LBUSD Long Beach Unified School District

LOS level of service

LST localized significance thresholds

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

Metro Los Angeles County Metropolitan Authority

MT metric ton

NAHC Native American Heritage Commission

NOX nitrogen oxides



August 2017 Page v

O3 ozone

OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

PM particulate matter

PPV peak particle velocity

PRC Public Resources Code

RMS root mean square

RTP/SCS regional transportation plan / sustainable communities strategy

SB Senate Bill

SCAG Southern California Association of Governments

SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District

SEADIP Southeast Area Development and Improvement Plan

SoCAB South Coast Air Basin

SOX sulfur oxides

V/C volume-to-capacity ratio

VdB velocity decibels

VOC volatile organic compound



Page vi PlaceWorks

This page intentionally left blank.

August 2017 Page 1

1. Introduction 1.1 OVERVIEW Long Beach Unified School District (LBUSD or District) is proposing to use the Charles F. Kettering Elementary School (Kettering ES) campus as interim housing as it modernizes eight elementary schools. The proposed project is required to undergo an environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. This initial study provides an evaluation of the potential environmental consequences associated with this proposed project.

1.2 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT The environmental compliance process is governed by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)1 and the State CEQA Guidelines.2 CEQA was enacted in 1970 by the California Legislature to disclose to decision makers and the public the significant environmental effects of projects and to identify ways to avoid or reduce the environmental effects through feasible alternatives or mitigation measures. Compliance with CEQA applies to California government agencies at all levels: local, regional, and state agencies, boards, commissions, and special districts (such as school districts and water districts).

The Long Beach Unified School District (LBUSD or District) is the lead agency for this proposed project, and is therefore required to conduct an environmental review to analyze the potential environmental effects associated with the proposed project.

California Public Resources Code Section 21080(a) states that analysis of a project’s environmental impact is required for any “discretionary projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies….” In this case, LBUSD has determined that an initial study is required to determine whether there is substantial evidence that construction and operation of the proposed project would result in environmental impacts. An initial study is a preliminary environmental analysis to determine whether an environmental impact report (EIR), a mitigated negative declaration (MND), or a negative declaration (ND) is required for a project.3

When an initial study identifies the potential for significant environmental impacts, the lead agency must prepare an EIR;4 however, if all impacts are found to be less than significant or can be mitigated to a less than significant level, the lead agency can prepare an ND or an MND that incorporates mitigation measures into the project.5

1 California Public Resources Code (PRC) Sections 21000 et seq. 2 California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq. 3 14 CCR Section 15063. 4 14 CCR Section 15064. 5 14 CCR Section 15070.


1. Introduction

Page 2 PlaceWorks

1.3 NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND SUPPORTING INITIAL STUDY This initial study was prepared to determine if the proposed project would have a significant impact on the environment. The purpose of the initial study is to 1) provide the lead agency with information to use as the basis for deciding the proper type of CEQA document to prepare; 2) enable the lead agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a negative declaration; 3) assist in the preparation of an EIR, if one is required; 4) facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project; (5) provide documentation of the factual basis for the findings in an MND or ND; (6) eliminate unnecessary EIRs; and (7) determine if the project is covered under a previously prepared EIR.6

Based on the findings in this initial study, the District has determined that an ND is the appropriate level of environmental documentation for the proposed Interim Housing project.

1.4 IMPACT TERMINOLOGY The following terminology is used to describe the level of significance of impacts.

A finding of no impact is appropriate if the analysis concludes that the project would not affect the particular topic area in any way.

An impact is considered less than significant if the analysis concludes that it would cause no substantial adverse change to the environment and requires no mitigation.

An impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated if the analysis concludes that it would cause no substantial adverse change to the environment with the inclusion of environmental commitments or other enforceable mitigation measures.

An impact is considered potentially significant if the analysis concludes that it could have a substantial adverse effect on the environment. If any impact is identified as potentially significant, an EIR would need to be prepared.

1.5 ORGANIZATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY The content and format of this report are designed to meet the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The conclusions in this initial study are that the proposed project would have no significant impacts. This report contains the following sections:

Chapter 1, Introduction, identifies the purpose and scope of the MND and supporting Initial Study and the terminology used.

6 14 CCR Section 15063.


1. Introduction

August 2017 Page 3

Chapter 2, Environmental Setting, describes the existing conditions, surrounding land uses, general plan designations, and existing zoning at the school and surrounding area.

Chapter 3, Project Description, identifies the location, background, and describes the proposed project in detail.

Chapter 4, Environmental Checklist, has the CEQA checklist and the significance finding for each resource topic.

Chapter 5, Environmental Analysis, provides an evaluation of the impact categories and a response to questions contained in the CEQA checklist. Bibliographical references and individuals cited for information sources and technical data are footnoted throughout this CEQA Initial Study; therefore a stand-alone bibliography section is not required.

Chapter 6, List of Preparers, identifies the individuals who prepared the MND and supporting Initial Study and technical studies and their areas of technical specialty.

Appendices have data supporting the analysis or contents of this CEQA Initial Study.

A. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Background and Modeling Data B. Noise and Vibration Background and Modeling Data C. Traffic Impact Analysis Traffic Counts and Calculation Worksheets


1. Introduction

Page 4 PlaceWorks


August 2017 Page 5

2. Environmental Setting 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION The proposed interim housing and parking lot expansion site is on the southeast corner of Charles F. Kettering Elementary School campus. The approximately 10.32-acre school is at 550 Silvera Avenue, in the southeast portion of the City of Long Beach in Los Angeles County, California. Regional access to the school is from East 7th Street (State Highway 22) to Silvera Avenue (see Figure 1, Regional Location, and Figure 2, Local Vicinity).

2.2 SURROUNDING LAND USE The Kettering ES campus is completely surrounded by urban development. As shown on Figure 3, Existing Conditions, the school is bordered by the following land uses.

North: Fenced vacant parcel with utility cabinets and asphalt surface; East 7th Street (the western extension of State Highway 22 [Garden Grove Freeway] between Studebaker Road and State Highway 1 [Pacific Coast Highway]); Bixby Terrace (private single-family homes).

East: Los Cerritos Channel, a 2.1-mile-long concrete stormwater drainage channel that directs stormwater flows directly into Alamitos Bay, then to the Pacific Ocean. It is part of the Los Angeles County Storm Drain System. The channel is owned by the County and maintained by the Flood Control District and Department of Public Works.

Channel View Park: This 5.28 acre-City-owned stretch of land is adjacent to the west side of the Los Cerritos Channel. The linear park has trees, grass, and a walking and biking path.

Long Beach Bikeway Route 10: This off-road concrete path connects the residential east side of the city to its urban city center by way of Belmont Heights neighborhood and the East Village, before finishing as an urban loop along the city’s bike boulevards. The approximately 11-mile-long bikeway starts at East Anaheim Street near its intersection of Palo Verde Avenue and near the entrance to Hill Middle School and ends at the First Street/Junipero Avenue intersection.

South: East 5th Street (2-lane undivided roadway that ends in a cul-de-sac at the southeast corner of the campus) and single-family homes.

West: Silvera Avenue (2-lane undivided roadway) and single-family homes.


2. Environmental Setting

Page 6 PlaceWorks

2.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS Kettering ES serves 349 students in grades K through 5, and has 30 staff personnel. The school has a capacity for 600 students. The 10.32-acre school is in an area with generally flat topography. The elevation on campus is about 10 feet above mean sea level.7 The existing campus is shown in Figure 4, Photo Location Key, and Figures 4a to 4c, Campus Photographs.

Permanent school buildings all front on Silvera Avenue, with seven portable buildings along the northern edge of the campus. Three portables are used for the Child Development Center program, and the others are standard classrooms. The majority of the campus consists of asphalt hardcourt play yard, two small turf play yards, and about seven rubber mat play equipment areas. Several mature trees are located along the campus borders with about six smaller trees on the interior of the campus.

Circulation and Parking

The school has one parking lot with access from three driveways along East 5th Street and about 50 spaces. All three driveways allow two-way traffic entering and exiting the lot. Parking is also permitted on both sides of East 5th Street, the west side of Silvera Avenue, and the east side of Silvera from midblock north to East 7th Street. Restricted parking for bus-only Special Day Class (special education) student drop-off and pick-up is on the east side from midblock south to East 5th Street. Student drop-off and pick-up takes place along East 5th Street, Silvera Avenue, 6th Street, and in the school parking lot (see Figure 5, Existing Parking Restrictions).

Operation

The kindergarten class schedule is from 8:00 AM to 12:20 PM and from 9:30 AM to 1:50 PM. First, second and third grade classes are from 8:00 AM to 2:05 PM, and fourth and fifth grades are from 8:00 AM to 2:10 PM.

2.4 GENERAL PLAN AND EXISTING ZONING The zoning designation of the school property is PD-1 (Planned Development). PD-1 is the Southeast Area Development and Improvement Plan (SEADIP).8 The General Plan land use designation for the school is Institutions/Schools.9

7 United State Department of the Interior Geological Survey. Los Alamitos Quadrangle 7.5 minute Series (Topographic). 1964,

Photo revised 1981. 8 Long Beach zoning map. Prepared by Department of Planning & Building and Department of Technology Services.

http://www.lbds.info/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=5030. Revised 12/2002. Municipal code: https://library.municode.com/ca/long_beach/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT21ZO_CH21.37PLDEDISPPL

9 Long Beach General Plan. 1989. Land Use Element. http://www.lbds.info/planning/advance_planning/general_plan.asp

PlaceWorks

Figure 1 - Regional Location

I N T E R I M H O U S I N G AT C H A R L E S F. K E T T E R I N G E L E M E N TA RY S C H O O L I N I T I A L S T U D YL O N G B E A C H U N I F I E D S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

Source: ESRI, 2017


0

Scale (Miles)

3

Site

Note: Unincorporated county areas are shown in white.

Pacific Ocean



Page 8 PlaceWorks


PlaceWorks

Figure 2 - Local Vicinity

Source: ESRI, 2017

0

Scale (Feet)

2,000Kettering Elementary School BoundaryNote: Unincorporated county areas are shown in white.

Cal StateUniversity

Long Beach

County of Orange

County of Los Angeles

San

Gab

riel R

iver

VALong Beach

Hospital

405

605

22

1

1

Long Beach

SealBeach

Rossmoor

LosAlamitos

Alamitos Bay





Page 10 PlaceWorks


PlaceWorks

Figure 3 - Existing Conditions

Source: Google Earth Pro, 2017

0

Scale (Feet)

250Kettering Elementary School Boundary

Residential

Residential

Residential

LosCerritosChannel

N S

tude

bake

r Rd

7th St

Bixby Terrace Pl

E Surrey Dr

E 5th St

E Vermont St

Silv

era

Ave

Pera

lta A

veE

Mon

ita S

t

E 6th St

Silv

era

Ave

ChannelViewPark

Long BeachBikeway Route 10

Vacant Parcel





Page 12 PlaceWorks


PlaceWorks

Figure 4 - Photo Location Key


0

Scale (Feet)

175Kettering Elementary School Boundary

7th St

Bixby Terrace Pl

E 5th St

Silv

era

Ave

Pera

lta A

ve

E 6th St

Silv

era

Ave

2

1Photograph Locationand Direction

ChannelViewPark


Residential

Residential

Vacant Parcel

2

1

6

4

3

5

Residential





Page 14 PlaceWorks


PlaceWorks

Figure 4a - Site Photographs

Photo 1. View looking northeast toward front of school from Silvera Avenue.

Photo 2. View looking south along Silvera Avenue toward school. Photo taken during afternoon student pick-up.





Page 16 PlaceWorks


PlaceWorks

Figure 4b - Site Photographs

Photo 3. View looking northwest from East 5th Street toward campus parking lot.

Photo 4. View looking north from southeast corner of campus across parking lot toward storage containers. East fence line shown on right.





Page 18 PlaceWorks


PlaceWorks

Figure 4c - Site Photographs

Photo 5. View looking southwest across four square game toward campus parking lot; Building C is on right.

Photo 6. View looking east from gate along fence line toward Channel View Park. Campus parking lot is on right.





Page 20 PlaceWorks


SCHOOL BUSPARKING ONLY

PlaceWorks

Figure 5 - Existing Parking Restrictions

I N T E R I M H O U S I N G AT K E T T E R I N G E L E M E N TA RY S C H O O L I N I T I A L S T U D YL O N G B E A C H U N I F I E D S C H O O L D I S T R I C T


0

Scale (Feet)

175

7th St

Bixby Terrace Pl

E 5th St

Silv

era

Ave

Pera

lta A

ve

E 6th St

Silv

era

Ave

ChannelViewPark


Residential

Residential

Vacant Parcel

Residential

30-MINUTEPARKING

NO PARKING7 AM - 4 PMON SCHOOL

DAYS

LOADING ZONE

PASSENGER LOADING AND UNLOADING PERMITTED.

DRIVER MUST REMAIN IN VEHICLE

2-HOUR PARKINGMON-FRI

9 AM - 6 PM

(EXCEPT HOLIDAYS AND

BY DISTRICT PERMIT)

Concrete Barrier





Page 22 PlaceWorks


August 2017 Page 23

3. Project Description 3.1 PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed project consists of the installation and use of interim housing (temporary portable buildings) and expansion of the existing parking lot at Kettering ES. The temporary portable buildings are required to house students during modernization of the following eight schools over the next eight years (see Figure 6, School Locations).

1. Kettering ES

2. Mann ES

3. Bixby ES

4. Fremont ES

5. Naples ES

6. Bryant ES

7. Gant ES

8. Prisk ES

Campus modernizations at each school would include:

Heating, ventilation, air conditioning (HVAC) system installation and boiler system removal

Electrical upgrades

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) facility improvements

Fire alarm upgrades

Intercom, clocks, speakers

Overhead projectors

Ceiling repair

Interior LED lights

New floors (some schools)

Interior paint (some schools)

Exterior paint (some schools)

None of the modernizations would increase capacity at any school. Permanent buildings would not be demolished or constructed. With the exception of Kettering ES, all work planned at the seven other schools is considered minor and would not have any direct or indirect effect on the existing environment or surrounding neighborhoods.


3. Project Description

Page 24 PlaceWorks

Starting in December 2017, Kettering students would be the first to move into the interim housing while modernization activities are underway. Once the Kettering ES modernization is complete, students would move back to their permanent facilities. The seven other schools would continue the process in succession, where students would be bused from their current school to the Kettering ES for school day instruction. In succession over seven years, Grades 3, 4, and 5 at each of the seven schools would be moved off-campus and into the interim housing while the modernization work is being done. To ensure a consistent education, students and teachers would stay together at the interim housing. When construction is complete, the classes for these grades would resume at each school. Students in kindergarten, 1st, and 2nd grades would continue to attend classes at each school. Because modernization work would be conducted in almost all campus buildings, the kindergarten, 1st, and 2nd grade students would use the empty classrooms and portables at each home school while their classrooms are upgraded. The kitchen, cafeteria, and other shared facilities would be upgraded during the summer when students are not in school.

It is anticipated that modernization work at each school would begin in December during winter break and be completed by December of the following year (see Table 1, below). Information and instructions about the interim housing would be distributed to all students and parents, and meetings would be held to explain the temporary procedures.

3.1.1 Facilities Twelve portable buildings would be installed at Kettering ES: 10 classrooms, a restroom building, and an administrative office. The portables would be placed in the southeast corner of the campus just north of the parking lot (see Figure 7, Conceptual Site Plan). Each portable building would be 24 feet by 40 feet, with a total area of 960 square feet. Each classroom has a maximum capacity of 35 students. The new portables would be placed on top of the existing asphalt surface. The restroom building would be 12 feet by 40 feet and have three rooms. Each building would be equipped with an ADA access ramp.

3.1.2 Parking The proposed project would expand the existing parking lot to accommodate the additional staff from each school. The lot would be expanded about 70 feet to the north to accommodate an additional row of parking, a parking drive aisle, a concrete curb barrier, a 20-foot access drive, and parking for a maximum of 4 buses. The existing asphalt would be demolished and removed, and the new lot would be constructed. The finished parking lot would have 80 spaces. The parking lot would have van-accessible locations, ramps, signage, lighting, and path of travel that are compliant with current ADA requirements.10

The expanded parking lot and access drive would displace two storage containers, four trees (Brisbane box [Lophostemon confertus]), and an area painted with a four-square game. Four trees located on the hardscape area would require removal. The existing asphalt would be repaved and stripped.

10 Long Beach Unified School District. Facility Design Standards. Design Guidelines. Volume 1. Version 2017.1, page 19.

PlaceWorks

Figure 6 - School Locations


0

Scale (Feet)

3,000

405

22

1

1

Pacific Ocean

Bixby Elementary

Gant Elementary

Prisk Elementary

Fremont Elementary

Mann Elementary

Naples Elementary

Bryant Elementary

Kettering Elementary

7th St

Bellfl

ower

Blv

d

Pacific Coast Highway

2nd St

Ocean Blvd

N L

akew

ood

Blvd

E Stearns St

Cla

rk A

ve

E Willow St

Palo

Ver

de A

ve

E Atherton St

Cal StateUniversity

Long Beach

San G

abrie

l Rive

r

E Anaheim St

E 3rd St

E Livingston Dr

Red

ondo

Blv

d

N S

tude

bake

r Rd

Marine Stadium

AlamitosBay

Los

Cer

ritos

Cha

nnel

Recreation Park 18 Golf Course

Former Railroad Right-of-Way





Page 26 PlaceWorks


PlaceWorks

Figure 7 - Conceptual Site Plan

Source: PBK, 2017

0

Scale (Feet)

140


Property Line

Sidewalk

Existing Hydrant

Property Line

Grass Area

Existing Hydrant

Property Line

Grass Area

Chain Link Fence

Building D

Building C

Building B

Building A

EAST 7TH STREET

Vacant Parcel

PROPERTY LINE

Re-Striped 4-Square

Sidewalk

PlaygroundEquipment

Property Line

Bike Racks

Property Line Existing Hydrant

Asphalt PlayArea

Chain Link Fence

Bus Stop

(N) 28 Spaces(N) 25 Spaces

(N) 27 Spaces Conc. Curb BarrierBus Path

Sidewalk

Existing Drive to be Closed

NewAdmin24’x40’

(960 SF)

NewCR 1024’x40’

(960 SF)

NewCR 0924’x40’

(960 SF)

NewCR 0824’x40’

(960 SF)

NewCR 0724’x40’

(960 SF)

NewCR 0624’x40’

(960 SF)

NewCR 0524’x40’

(960 SF)

NewCR 0424’x40’

(960 SF)

New CR 0124’x40’

(960 SF)

New CR 0224’x40’

(960 SF)

New CR 0324’x40’

(960 SF)




Page 28 PlaceWorks




August 2017 Page 29

The center access driveway would be closed and the two remaining driveways would be widened from 15 feet to 20 feet. The east driveway would be “enter only” and the west driveway “exit only.”

3.1.3 Lighting The District would provide lighting in the parking lot, at the portable buildings, and along the path of access to the school.11 In compliance with existing District design standards, the new lighting would include:

a. Exterior lighting shall be heavy-duty and vandal-resistant per District standard light fixture schedule.12

b. Exterior lighting is to be tied into the Energy Management System.

c. Minimize use of pole lights where possible.

d. Utilize soffit lights where possible and coordinate location with doors.

e. Provide general lighting of entire exterior of building compound, primary walkways and parking lots. Design exterior lighting system to achieve a minimum maintained 1.5 foot-candle. Provide photometric study to show compliance.

f. Exterior lighting to be designed to minimize light pollution and avoid overspill to adjacent properties. Specify full cut-off fixture with the use of house side shields.

3.1.4 Circulation Drop-off and pick-up would continue to occur along East 5th Street and Silvera Avenue. Other schools would access the portables from East 5th Street only; they would not walk through the Kettering campus. Kettering ES students would use the front entrance along Silvera Avenue. The new drop-off area would accommodate student loading and unloading for the temporary students. Drop-off and pick-up procedures may take a week or so for drivers to learn. The project includes several safety features that would assist in avoiding conflicts between cars and people, as listed below.

Pavement markings on the parking lot access driveways to indicate the one-directional traffic flow.

Signage placed at the school’s egress driveway to indicate entrance-only and exit-only.

Signage to indicate the bus drop-off and pick-up area and driveway exclusive for bus access.

To promote higher parking turnover during student drop-off and pick-up, approximately 260 feet of the 5th Street north curb would be painted green and signed for temporary parking for 30 minutes from 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM school days, the same as the parking restriction on Silvera Avenue.

11 Long Beach Unified School District. Facility Design Standards. Design Guidelines. Volume 1. Version 2017.1, page 15. 12 Long Beach Unified School District. Facility Design Standards. Design Guidelines. Volume 1. Version 2017.1, page 87.



Page 30 PlaceWorks

At least 10 spaces in the northern portion of the expanded parking lot would be dedicated for 30-minute guest parking during drop-off and pick-up.

A walkway would be constructed from E 5th Street to the interim housing to separate pedestrians from vehicles, allowing students to walk to and from 5th Street without crossing the parking lot and driveways.

Meetings and informational packets would be distributed to instruct parents on the student drop-off and pick-up procedures.

The District facilities staff and Kettering ES principal will review student drop-off and pick-up procedures every month while school is in session to identify bottlenecks and areas for improvement, and shall make adjustments.

The District would implement an incentive program to encourage staff from other schools to carpool.

The District would implement an incentive program to encourage parents of students from other schools to rideshare with other students, and to encourage students to take the bus.

A new fire lane would be designated along the eastern fence line, from the new access drive on the south to the basketball courts on the north (see Figure 7).

3.1.5 Operation Three grades from each of the eight elementary schools (as listed in Table 1) would attend classes at the new Kettering ES portable classrooms for about one year while each campus is undergoing modernizations.

Kettering students would be the first to move into the interim housing while modernization activities are underway. Once the Kettering ES modernization is complete, students would move back to their permanent facilities. The seven other schools would continue the process in succession, where students would be bused from their current school to the Kettering ES. To ensure a consistent education, students and teachers would stay together. When all modernization has been completed, the temporary portable buildings at Kettering ES would be removed.

The buses would pick up students at their home school at the normal start time for that school. Buses would then drop off students at the interim housing. At the end of the day (normal dismissal time for the home school), the students would board the bus and be taken back to the home school for pick-up by parents. Some parents would choose to drive children to and from Kettering ES. Although the current attendance at Kettering ES 349; this project would not exceed the existing 690 student capacity currently available at the school.



August 2017 Page 31

Table 1 Modernization Schedule

Modernization Dates School Address

3rd, 4th, 5th Grade Students /

Staff at KESb School

Schedule Overlap

KES Schedule?

Buss Pick-up / Drop-off Location

Max. # of Buses for Transport to KESa

Total # of Students at

KES

2018–2019 Kettering ES

550 Silvera Avenue 349 / 15 8:00 AM–

2:10 PM n/a Silvera Avenue 0 349

2019–2020 Mann ES 257

Coronado Avenue

185 / 14 9:00 AM–3:10 PM no Coronado

Avenue 3 534

2020–2021 Bixby ES 5251 East Stearns Street

195 / 13 8:00 AM–2:10 PM yes Stanbridge

Avenue 3 544

2021–2022 Fremont ES

4000 East Fourth Street 241 / 15 8:00 AM–

2:10 PM yes Vermont Street 4 590

2022–2023 Naples ES 5537 The Toledo 186 / 13 8:00 AM–

2:10 PM yes St. Irmo Walk 3 535

2023–2024 Bryant ES 4101 East Fountain

Street 170 / 14 9:00 AM–

3:10 PM no Termino Avenue 3 519

2024–2025 Gant ES 1854 Britton Drive 260 / 16 8:00 AM–

2:10 PM yes Britton Drive 4 609

2025–2026 Prisk ES 2375

Fanwood Avenue

250 / 16 9:00 AM–3:10 PM no Albury

Avenue 4 599

Note: Each school would also have one or two small buses for Special Day Class students. a Standard school bus has 22 to 24 seats. The general guideline used for Grades K-6 is 3 students to a seat. The maximum capacity of a standard school bus is 72

passengers. The District does not anticipate every student will take the bus, and the maximum number of buses is not expected. b Staff includes assistant principle, office staff, janitor, speech teachers, and classroom teachers.

3.1.6 Construction Placement of the portable buildings at Kettering ES is anticipated to begin around October 2017 and be completed in two months by December 2017. Planned occupancy by Kettering students is scheduled to begin in mid-December 2017. It is anticipated that modernization work at each school would begin in December during winter break and be completed by December of the following year. All construction equipment staging and worker parking would along the eastern edge of the campus away from classrooms. The proposed project would be constructed as described below.

Site Preparation: Four trees located on the hardscape area would require removal.

Utility Trenching: Utility trenches would be excavated, and utility pipes and cables would be laid in trenches and connected to the portable buildings. Underground utilities for water and wastewater to the restroom building would connect to existing lines along East 5th Street. Electricity and telephone lines to the portables would connect to existing overhead power lines on East 5th Street.



Page 32 PlaceWorks

Portable Installation: 12 portable buildings would be hauled onto the campus and place by a crane on the asphalt hardcourt play yard. A total of approximately 25 trucks would be required for delivery in 2017 and pick-up and removal in 2026.

Parking Lot Expansion: Two driveways would be widened and one closed. The parking lot and access drive would be repaved and striped, and concrete curb installed. The expanded parking lot and driveways would be constructed sometime between October and December 2017.

Finishing: Indoor finishing work on the portables would include placement of furniture and equipment.

3.2 LEAD AGENCY The LBUSD is the lead agency under CEQA and has approval authority over the proposed project. The project-related MND must be adopted by the Board of Education, confirming its adequacy in complying with the requirements of CEQA. The Board will consider the information in the MND in deciding to approve or deny the proposed project. The analysis is intended to provide environmental review for the whole of the proposed project, including the planning of the project; clearance, excavation, and grading of the site; construction of buildings; installation of the proposed facilities; and ongoing operation.

3.3 ANTICIPATED AGENCY ACTIONS It is the intent of this CEQA document to enable the District and responsible agencies to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed project, thereby enabling them to make informed decisions with respect to the requested entitlements, permits, or approvals. Agency actions are identified in Table 2.

Table 2 Anticipated Agency Actions Lead Agency Discretionary Action

Long Beach Unified School District Adoption of the ND Approval of the Project

Reviewing Agency13 Action City of Long Beach

Fire Department Fire/Life Safety review of: 1) stair access for emergency rescue and patient transport; 2) access roads, fire lane markings, pavers and entrances; 3) fire hydrant location and distribution; 4) fire flow (location of post indicator valve, fire department connection, and detector check valve assembly)

Public Works Department Public Works Department approval of offsite improvements; permit for widening of two driveways and closure of one.

13 14 CCR Section 15381. “Responsible Agency” means a public agency which proposes to carry out or approve a project, for which

a Lead Agency is preparing or has prepared an EIR or Negative Declaration. For the purposes of CEQA, the term “Responsible Agency” includes all public agencies other than the Lead Agency which have discretionary approval power over the project. Reviewing Agencies include those agencies that do not have discretionary powers over the proposed project, but that may 1) review the EIR for adequacy and accuracy; 2) issue ministerial approvals or permits.

August 2017 Page 33

4. Environmental Checklist 4.1 BACKGROUND 1. Project Title: Interim Housing at Charles F. Kettering Elementary School

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Long Beach Unified School District 2425 Webster Avenue Long Beach, CA 90810

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Jacquelyn Roberts (562) 997-7550

4. Project Location: The proposed interim housing and parking lot expansion site is on the southeast corner of Kettering ES campus. The approximately 10.32-acre school is at 550 Silvera Avenue, in the southeast portion of the City of Long Beach in Los Angeles County, California. (Assessor Parcel Number [APN 7237-001-901]).

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Long Beach Unified School District 2425 Webster Avenue Long Beach, CA 90810

6. General Plan Designation: Institutions/Schools.

7. Zoning: PD-1, Planning Development, in the Southeast Area Development and Improvement Plan (SEADIP).

8. Description of Project: Long Beach Unified School District is proposing the installation and use of interim housing and expansion of the existing parking lot at Kettering ES. Interim housing at Kettering ES is required to house students during modernization of the following eight schools over the next eight years: Kettering ES, Mann ES, Bixby ES, Fremont ES, Naples ES, Bryant ES, Gant ES, and Prisk ES.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The Kettering ES campus is completely surrounded by urban development. Channel View Park borders the site to the east followed by the Los Cerritos Channel.

10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required: None.


4. Environmental Checklist

Page 34 PlaceWorks

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun? (Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code section 21083.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.94 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.)

Yes. California Native American tribes have requested formal notice of proposed projects as follows: Gabrieleño Band of the Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, letter dated July 2016; San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, letter dated December 1, 2016; Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, letter dated May 16, 2016.

The Long Beach Unified School District notified the Tribes about this project in a letter dated July 3, 2017 and sent via certified mail and email to:

Mr. Andrew Salas, Tribal Chairman, Gabrieleño Band of the Mission Indians – Kizh Nation; Mr. Anthony Morales, Chief, San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians; Mr. Michael Mirelez, Cultural Resource Coordinator, Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians



Page 36 PlaceWorks

4.4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported

by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors, as well as general standards (e.g., the project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.

5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:

a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.

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

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

6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

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



August 2017 Page 37

8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

9. The explanation of each issue should identify:

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

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

Issues

Potentially Significant

Impact

Less Than Significant

With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not

limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

X

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? X

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? X

II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

X

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? X

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?

X

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

e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

X



Page 38 PlaceWorks

Issues


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air

pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air

quality plan? X b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to

an existing or projected air quality violation? X c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any

criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

X

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? X

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through

habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

X

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

X

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

X

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

X

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

X

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

X

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a

historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? X b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an

archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? X c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource

or site or unique geologic feature? X



August 2017 Page 39

Issues


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside

of dedicated cemeteries? X VI. GEOLOGY and SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse

effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on

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

X

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X iv) Landslides? X

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that

would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

X

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?

X

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

X

VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or

indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

X

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

X

VIII. HAZARDS and HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment

through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

X

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

X

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

X

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

X



Page 40 PlaceWorks

Issues


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where

such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

X

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?

X

g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

X

h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

X

IX. HYDROLOGY and WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge

requirements? X b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere

substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

X

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site

X

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?

X

e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

X

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped

on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

X

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? X

i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

X

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X



August 2017 Page 41

Issues


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact X. LAND USE and PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation

of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

X

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X

XI. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource

that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state?

X

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

X

XII. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess

of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

X

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? X

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

X

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

X

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?

X

XIII. POPULATION and HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly

(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

X

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

X

c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X



Page 42 PlaceWorks

Issues


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of

new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

a) Fire protection? X b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Parks? X e) Other public facilities? X XV. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood

and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

X

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?

X

XVI. TRANSPORTATION and TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy

establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

X

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?

X

c) 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?

X

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

X

e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X 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?

X



August 2017 Page 43

Issues


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of

a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or

X

b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

X

XVIII. UTILITIES and SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable

Regional Water Quality Control Board? X b) Require or result in the construction of new water or

wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

X

c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

X

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

X

e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

X

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

g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? X

XIX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of

the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

X



Page 44 PlaceWorks

Issues


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but

cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)

X

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

X

August 2017 Page 45

5. Environmental Analysis Section 4.4 provided a checklist of environmental impacts. This section provides an evaluation of the impact categories and questions contained in the checklist and identifies mitigation measures, if applicable.

5.1 AESTHETICS a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

No Impact. Vistas provide visual access or panoramic views to a large geographic area. The field of view from a vista location can be wide and extend into the distance. Panoramic views are usually associated with vantage points looking out over a section of urban or natural areas that provide a geographic orientation not commonly available. Examples of panoramic views include an urban skyline, valley, mountain range, the ocean, or other water bodies.14

The school campus and surrounding area are flat and developed with urban land uses, including residential, commercial, and industrial uses. The school campus has numerous one- and two-story buildings, surface parking, play fields, hardcourts, student gathering areas, and ornamental trees and landscaping. Although the project would include the placements of portable buildings for interim housing, there are no protected or designated scenic vistas or views, and project development would not obscure any views. Therefore, no impact to scenic vistas would occur.

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

No Impact. The closest designated state scenic highway in Los Angeles County is State Route 110, California Historic Parkway (Arroyo Seco Historic Parkway), over 20 miles north of the school.15 The temporary portable structures associated with the project would not be visible from any designated scenic highway. Project development would not result in impacts to scenic resources within a designated state scenic highway. No impact would occur.

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

Less Than Significant Impact. The existing school campus is in an urbanized area and surrounded by residential uses. The project includes the temporary installation of portable structures on the existing school hardscape area. The portables would be removed in approximately eight years and would be of similar height

14 City of Los Angeles, LA CEQA Thresholds Guide, Chapter A, 2006.

http://www.environmentla.org/programs/Thresholds/Complete%20Threshold%20Guide%202006.pdf

15 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Updated September 7, 2011. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm.


5. Environmental Analysis

Page 46 PlaceWorks

to the existing school buildings. Therefore, this project would not substantially degrade the existing character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Therefore, impacts to the visual character and quality of the school campus and surrounding uses would be less than significant.

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

Less than Significant. The two major causes of light pollution are glare and spill light. Spill light is caused by misdirected light that illuminates areas outside the area intended to be lit. Glare occurs when a bright object is against a dark background, such as oncoming vehicle headlights or an unshielded light bulb.

The school campus is in an urban setting and is fully developed. The existing school generates nighttime light from security and parking lot lights and building lights (interior and exterior). Surrounding land uses also generate significant light from street lights, vehicle lights, parking lot lights, and building lights.

The proposed project would not significantly increase nighttime lighting on the campus. The portable buildings would be in the campus interior. The proposed project would not include any high-intensity lighting such as is used for athletic fields. Any new security and/or path lights would be directional and would not spill light outside the school campus. Lighting for the proposed project would not introduce lights at substantially greater intensities than existing lights on and near the school, and the project would have no impact on nighttime views. Light and glare impacts would be less than significant.

5.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

No Impact. The proposed project would not convert farmland to nonagricultural uses. There is no agricultural or farm use on or in the vicinity of the school campus; therefore, no project-related farmland



August 2017 Page 47

conversion impact would occur. The school campus is fully developed and is not mapped as important farmland.16,17 No impact would occur.

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with agricultural zoning or a Williamson Act contract. The existing zoning designation of the school property is PD-1 (Planned Development). PD-1 is in the SEADIP.18 The site is not zoned for agricultural use, and project development would not conflict with such zoning. Williamson Act contracts restrict the use of privately owned land to agriculture and compatible open-space uses under contract with local governments; in exchange, the land is taxed based on actual use rather than potential market value. There is no Williamson Act contract in effect onsite. No impact would occur.

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?

No Impact. Project development would not conflict with existing zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland production. Forest land is defined as “land that can support 10-percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits.”19 Timberland is defined as “land…which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of any commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees.”20 The school campus is zoned as PD-1 (Planned Development) in the SEADIP.21 No impact would occur.

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

No Impact. Construction of the proposed project would not result in the loss or conversion of forest land. No vegetation onsite is cultivated for forest resources. The portables would be placed on asphalt playground surface and a few ornamental trees would be removed. No forest land would be affected by the proposed project, and no impacts would occur.

16 Division of Land Resource Protection (DLRP). 2017, J. California Important Farmland Finder.

http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/ciff/ciff.html. 17 Most of urbanized Los Angeles County, including the Kettering ES campus, is not mapped on the California Important Farmland

Finder. 18 Long Beach zoning map. Prepared by Dept. of Planning & Building and Dept. of Technology Services.


19 California PRC Section 12220(g). 20 California PRC Section 4526. 21 Long Beach zoning map. Prepared by Dept. of Planning & Building and Dept. of Technology Services.


http://www.lbds.info/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=5030

http://www.lbds.info/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=5030



Page 48 PlaceWorks

e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

No Impact. There is no mapped important farmland or forest land on or near the school campus, and project development would not indirectly cause conversion of such land to nonagricultural or nonforest use. No impact would occur.

5.3 AIR QUALITY The Air Quality section addresses the impacts of the proposed project on ambient air quality and the exposure of people, especially sensitive individuals, to unhealthful pollutant concentrations. A background discussion on the air quality regulatory setting, meteorological conditions, existing ambient air quality in the vicinity of the school, and air quality modeling can be found in Appendix A.

The primary air pollutants of concern for which ambient air quality standards (AAQS) have been established are ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM10), fine inhalable particulate matter (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and lead (Pb). Areas are classified under the federal and California Clean Air Act as either in attainment or nonattainment for each criteria pollutant based on whether the AAQS have been achieved. The South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB), which is managed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), is designated nonattainment for O3, and PM2.5 under the California and National AAQS, nonattainment for PM10 under the California AAQS, and nonattainment for lead (Los Angeles County only) under the National AAQS.22

Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Would the project:

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

Less Than Significant Impact. A consistency determination plays an important role in local agency project review by linking local planning and individual projects to the air quality management plan (AQMP). It fulfills the CEQA goal of informing decision makers of the environmental efforts of the project under consideration at an early enough stage to ensure that air quality concerns are fully addressed. It also provides the local agency with ongoing information as to whether they are contributing to clean air goals in the AQMP. The most recently adopted comprehensive plan is the 2016 AQMP, adopted on March 3, 2017 (see Appendix A to this Initial Study for a description of the 2016 AQMP).

Regional growth projections are used by SCAQMD to forecast future emission levels in the SoCAB. For southern California, these regional growth projections are provided by the Southern California Association of

22 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2016, May. Area Designations Maps: State and National.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm.



August 2017 Page 49

Governments (SCAG) and are partially based on land use designations in city/county general plans.23 Typically, only large, regionally significant projects have the potential to affect the regional growth projections.

The proposed project involves construction of an 80-space parking lot, bus circulation route, and the temporary installation of 12 portables. The proposed project is not a project of statewide, regional, or areawide significant that would require intergovernmental review under Section 15206 of the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, the project would not have the potential to substantially affect SCAG’s demographic projections. Additionally, the regional emissions generated by construction and operation of the proposed project would be less than the SCAQMD emissions thresholds, and SCAQMD would not consider the project a substantial source of air pollutant emissions that would have the potential to affect the attainment designations in the SoCAB. Thus, the project would not affect the regional emissions inventory or conflict with strategies in the AQMP. Impacts would be less than significant.

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

Less Than Significant Impact. The following describes project-related impacts from short-term construction activities and long-term operation of the proposed project.

Short-Term Air Quality Impacts Construction activities would result in the generation of air pollutants. These emissions would primarily be 1) exhaust emissions from off-road diesel-powered construction equipment; 2) dust generated by construction activities; 3) exhaust emissions from on-road vehicles; and 4) off-gas emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from asphalt paving.

Construction would involve site preparation, utility trenching, installation of 12 portables, asphalt paving, and finishing. Portable installation would start in October 2017 and end in December 2017. Construction emissions were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2016.3.1. Results of the construction emission modeling are shown in Table 3 for maximum daily emissions. As shown in the table, air pollutant emissions from construction-related activities would be less than their respective SCAQMD regional significance threshold values. Therefore, air quality impacts from project-related construction activities would be less than significant.

23 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2016, April. The 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable

Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS): A Plan for Mobility, Accessibility, Sustainability, and a High Quality of Life. http://scagrtpscs.net/Documents/2016/final/f2016RTPSCS.pdf



Page 50 PlaceWorks

Table 3 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions

Source Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/Day)a

VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10b PM2.5b

Phase 1 Year 2017 Driveway Work 1 10 8 <1 1 1 Site Preparation 1 11 5 <1 1 <1 Utility Trenching <1 4 3 <1 <1 <1 Portable Installation <1 6 2 <1 <1 <1 Finishing 1 4 3 <1 <1 <1 Year 2018 Concrete Work 1 10 9 <1 1 1 Asphalt Paving 1 9 8 <1 1 1 Maximum Daily Emissions 1 11 9 <1 1 1 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold No No No No No No Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.1. Highest winter or summer emissions are reported. Notes: lbs: Pounds; N/A: Not Applicable. Bold: Exceed Threshold. a Construction phasing is based on the preliminary information and equipment list approved by the District. Where specific information regarding project-related

construction activities was not available, construction assumptions were based on CalEEMod defaults, which are based on construction surveys conducted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District of construction equipment and phasing for comparable projects.

b Includes implementation of fugitive dust control measures required by SCAQMD under Rule 403, including watering disturbed areas a minimum of two times per day, reducing speed limit to 15 miles per hour on unpaved surfaces, replacing ground cover quickly, and street sweeping with Rule 1186–compliant sweepers.

Long-Term Operation-Related Air Quality Impact Long-term air pollutant emissions generated by the project would be generated by area sources (e.g., landscape fuel use, aerosols, and architectural coatings), energy use (natural gas) associated with the proposed portables, and mobile sources (i.e., vehicle trips associated with the relocated students from the other schools). For this analysis, the number of vehicle trips associated with the relocated Prisk ES students and staff is used because Prisk ES would generate the highest number of trips—330 average vehicle trips per day—representing the worst-case scenario. In addition, an average trip distance of 40 miles per trip is assumed for buses. For passenger vehicles, the CalEEMod default of 16.6 miles per commercial-work vehicle trip is used. Since the majority of passenger vehicle trips would be associated with students and the farthest home in the Prisk ES boundary is only about five miles from Kettering ES, this analysis is considered to provide a conservative estimate for emissions.

Criteria air pollutant emissions were modeled using CalEEMod and are compared to the SCAQMD’s significance thresholds in Table 4. As shown in the table, criteria air pollutant emissions from operation activities would not exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds for operation. Since this analysis uses Prisk ES as the worst-case scenario, it is anticipated that the relocation of students and staff from any other school would also not generate operation emissions that would exceed the SCAQMD regional significance threshold. Therefore, operation-phase regional air quality impacts are considered less than significant.



August 2017 Page 51

Table 4 Maximum Daily Operation Emissions

Source Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/Day)

VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 Total PM2.5 Total

Proposed Project Area <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Energy <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Mobile Sources 1 11 19 <1 6 2 Total Emissions 1 11 19 <1 6 2 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 550 Exceeds Threshold No No No No No No Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.1. Highest winter or summer emissions are reported. Notes: lbs: Pounds; N/A: Not Applicable. Totals may not total to 100 percent due to rounding.

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

Less Than Significant Impact. The SoCAB is designated nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5 under the California and National AAQS, nonattainment for PM10 under the California AAQS, and nonattainment for lead under the National AAQS.24 According to SCAQMD methodology, any project that does not exceed or can be mitigated to less than the daily threshold values would not add significantly to a cumulative impact.25 Construction and operational activities would not result in emissions in excess of SCAQMD’s significant thresholds. Therefore, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants and impacts would be less than significant.

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project could expose sensitive receptors to elevated pollutant concentrations if it would cause or contribute significantly to elevated pollutant concentration levels. Unlike regional emissions, localized emissions are typically evaluated in terms of air concentration rather than mass so they can be more readily correlated to potential health effects.

Construction LSTs

Localized significance thresholds (LSTs) are based on the California AAQS, which are the most stringent AAQS that have been established to provide a margin of safety in the protection of public health and welfare. They are designated to protect sensitive receptors most susceptible to further respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and people engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Construction LSTs are based on the size of the project site,

24 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2016, May. Area Designations Maps: State and National.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm 25 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 1993. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Handbook.



Page 52 PlaceWorks

distance to the nearest sensitive receptor, and Source Receptor Area. Receptors proximate to the project site are the residences to the west and south.

Air pollutant emissions generated by construction activities are anticipated to cause temporary increases in air pollutant concentrations. Table 5 shows the maximum daily construction emissions (pounds per day) generated during onsite construction activities compared with the SCAQMD’s screening-level construction LSTs. As shown in the table, the maximum daily NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 construction emissions generated from onsite construction-related activities would be less than their respective SCAQMD LSTs. Therefore, project-related construction activities would not have the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The impact would be less than significant.

Table 5 Localized Construction Emissions

Source Pollutants (lbs/day)a

NOX CO PM10 PM2.5

2018 Driveway Work 9 7 0.70 0.63 2017 Site Preparation 11 4 0.50 0.44 2017 Utility Trenching 3 2 0.23 0.21 2017 Portable Installation 4 1 0.18 0.16 2017 Finishing 4 3 0.23 0.24 2018 Concrete Work 9 8 0.75 0.61 2018 Asphalt Paving 9 7 0.51 0.47 SCAQMD <1.00 acre LST 57 585 4.00 3.00 Exceeds LST? No No No No Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.1., and SCAQMD 2008 and 2011.26 Notes: In accordance with SCAQMD methodology, only onsite stationary sources and mobile equipment occurring on the project site are included in the analysis. LSTs

are based on receptors within 82 feet (25 meters) of the project site in Source Receptor Area (SRA) 4. a The construction schedule is based on the preliminary information from LBUSD. Where specific construction information was not available, construction assumptions

were based on CalEEMod defaults, which are based on construction surveys conducted by SCAQMD of construction equipment and phasing for comparable projects.

Construction Health Risk

SCAQMD currently does not require health risk assessments to be conducted for short-term emissions from construction equipment. Emissions from construction equipment primarily consist of diesel particulate matter (DPM). The Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment (OEHHA) has recently adopted new guidance for the preparation of health risk assessments issued in March 2015.27 OEHHA has developed a cancer risk factor and non-cancer chronic reference exposure level for DPM, but these factors are based on continuous exposure over a 30-year time frame. No short-term acute exposure levels have been developed for 26 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2008, July. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology.

http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/final-lst-methodology-document.pdf; SCAQMD. 2011. Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/caleemod-guidance.pdf.

27 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015, February. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf.



August 2017 Page 53

DPM. The proposed project is anticipated to be developed in approximately three months, which would limit the exposure to onsite and offsite receptors. SCAQMD currently does not require the evaluation of long-term excess cancer risk or chronic health impacts for a short-term project. In addition, construction activities would not exceed LST significance thresholds. For the reasons stated above, it is anticipated that construction emissions would not pose a threat to onsite and offsite receptors at or near the school, and project-related construction health impacts would be less than significant.

Operation LSTs

Operation of the proposed project would not generate substantial quantities of emission from onsite, stationary sources. Land uses that have the potential to generate substantial stationary sources of emissions that would require a permit from SCAQMD include industrial land uses, such as chemical processing and warehousing operations where substantial truck idling could occur onsite. The proposed project does not fall within these categories of uses. While operation of the proposed project would result in the use of standard onsite mechanical equipment such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning units installed to the new proposed portable classrooms, air pollutant emissions generated from these activities would be nominal. Therefore, localized air quality impacts related to operation-related emissions would be less than significant.

Carbon Monoxide Hotspots

Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of CO called hotspots. These pockets have the potential to exceed the state one-hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) or the eight-hour standard of 9.0 ppm. Because CO is produced in greatest quantities from vehicle combustion and does not readily disperse into the atmosphere, adherence to ambient air quality standards is typically demonstrated through an analysis of localized CO concentrations. Hotspots are typically produced at intersections, where traffic congestion is highest because vehicles queue for longer periods and are subject to reduced speeds.

The SoCAB has been designated attainment under both the national and California AAQS for CO. Under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour—or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited—in order to generate a significant CO impact.28 The portables would temporarily house students from nearby schools. The highest peak hour trips generated would be 110 morning peak hour trips associated with the relocated Prisk ES students and staff; this would be substantially below the number of trips required to form a hotspot. Furthermore, the SoCAB has since been designated as attainment under both the national and California AAQS for CO. The project would not have the potential to substantially increase CO hotspots at intersections in the vicinity of the school. Localized air quality impacts related to mobile-source emissions would be less than significant.

28 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017, May Revised. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality

Guidelines.



Page 54 PlaceWorks

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not result in objectionable odors. The threshold for odor is if a project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, which states:

A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. The provisions of this rule shall not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals.

The type of facilities that are considered to have objectionable odors include wastewater treatments plants, compost facilities, landfills, solid waste transfer stations, fiberglass manufacturing facilities, paint/coating operations (e.g., auto body shops), dairy farms, petroleum refineries, asphalt batch plants, chemical manufacturing, and food manufacturing facilities. The use of the proposed project does not fall within the aforementioned land uses. Emissions from construction equipment, such as diesel exhaust and volatile organic compounds from architectural coatings and paving activities, may generate odors. However, these odors would be low in concentration, temporary, and are not expected to affect a substantial number of people. Therefore, odor impacts would be less than significant.

5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species

identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

No Impact. The school campus is fully developed, with most of the site consisting of buildings, asphalt, and concrete. Vegetation onsite is limited to ornamental trees, shrubs, and turf. There is no native habitat and no suitable habitat for threatened, endangered, or rare species onsite. No impact would occur.

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

No Impact. Sensitive natural communities are natural communities that are considered rare in the region by regulatory agencies; that are known to provide habitat for sensitive animal or plant species; or are known to be important wildlife corridors. Riparian habitats are those occurring along the banks of rivers and streams. There is no sensitive natural community or riparian habitat onsite. No impact would occur.



August 2017 Page 55

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

No Impact. The school campus is fully developed, and there are no protected wetlands onsite. The proposed project would be confined to the school campus and would not have the potential to impact any offsite protected wetland areas. The portables are being placed on an area that is hardscape and would not change the hydrology of the site. The Los Cerritos Channel, a man-made concrete stormwater drainage channel to the east of the site, is a deep-water tidal habitat.29 No impact would occur.

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with any native fish or wildlife species. Wildlife corridors link areas of natural habitats separated by rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or human disturbance. Corridors accommodate animal movement to enhance genetic interchange and re-colonization of the species, and provide buffers for species populations to use in response to environmental changes and natural disasters. Large corridors (often referred to as habitat or landscape linkages) can provide both transitory and resident habitat for a variety of species.

The elementary school campus does not function as a wildlife movement corridor, due to its location in an urbanized area and lack of any nearby habitat. The site is fully developed and does not support native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. The site does not have any watercourse or water body, greenbelt, or native habitat for fish or wildlife.

Migrating birds use trees as nesting or nursery sites and the project construction would require the removal of four trees. Migratory birds are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).30 Over 800 species are currently on the list, including the American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) found throughout the urban areas in Los Angeles. Also, the California Fish and Game Code (Section 3503.5) prohibits direct impacts to hawks, eagles, owls, and to the nest or egg of any bird species. If construction activities are planned during the bird nesting season and require the removal of trees, or if construction is near off-site mature, trees bird nesting may be disturbed. Disturbance to native bird species during the nesting season (approximately mid-February to mid-August) would be a violation of MBTA and California Fish and Game Code. Because the trees would be removed around October 2017 it would not overlap the nesting season. Impacts to native resident or migratory birds would be less than significant.

29 United States Fish & Wildlife Services. National Wetlands Inventory, 2017. June 21.

https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html. 30 United States Code Annotated. Title 16. Conservation. Chapter 7. Protection of Migratory Game and Insectivorous Birds.

Subchapter II. Migratory Bird Treaty. § 703. Taking, killing, or possessing migratory birds unlawful. http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/16C7.txt.



Page 56 PlaceWorks

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

No Impact. The City of Long Beach does not have a tree preservation ordinance that could be applicable onsite. Project development would not impact local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

No Impact. The school is not within an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or similar plan.31 No impact would occur.

5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in

§ 15064.5?

No Impact. Section 15064.5 defines historic resources as resources listed or determined to be eligible for listing by the State Historical Resources Commission, a local register of historical resources, or the lead agency. Generally a resource is considered “historically significant” if it meets one of the following criteria:

i) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;

ii) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;

iii) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values;

iv) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Kettering ES was built in the early 1960s. The school is fully developed with no visible native ground surface exposed. No development is shown on or near the school in topographic maps dating back to 1896 and aerial photographs from the 1950s prior to school construction. Project development does not involve site grading. A limited amount of excavation for trenching for utilities would be needed for the placement of the portables on the asphalt playfield. No impact to historical resources is would occur.

31 US Geological Survey (USGS). 2015, November 30. Region 8 Habitat Conservation Plans (data layer in USGS National Map).

Accessed June 21, 2017. https://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/?q=ags%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencebase.gov%2Farcgis%2Frest%2Fservices%2FCatalog%2F521fdafbe4b08e3fb9959e41%2FMapServer.



August 2017 Page 57

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?

No Impact. The school is fully developed. The proposed project consists of the installation and use of temporary portable buildings for interim housing and expansion of the existing parking lot in areas that are already paved with asphalt. The project does not involve site grading. A limited amount of excavation for trenching for utilities would be needed for the placement of the portables on the asphalt. No impact to archeological resources would occur.

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

No Impact. Several vertebrate fossil localities have been discovered in the southern part of the City of Long Beach. The closest known paleontological resources were identified in older Quaternary deposits near 7th Street and Pacific Coast Highway.32 The school is mapped as being located on late to middle Pleistocene surficial deposits.33 Limited shallow excavation for trenching for utilities is planned in an area that is already developed as an operating elementary school. Impacts to paleontological resources would not occur.

d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?

No Impact. The proposed project does not involve earth movement and discovery of human remains is not anticipated during shallow trenching for utility hookups to the portable buildings. Impacts to human remains would not occur.

5.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,

injury, or death involving:

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

No Impact. Based on a review of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map website,34 the City of Long Beach General Plan (1988),35 and the Geologic Map of the Long Beach 30' X 60' Quadrangle36

32 City of Long Beach. 2015. Southeast Area Specific Plan EIR City of Long Beach. Accessed July 3, 2017.

http://www.lbds.info/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=5957 33 Saucedo, G. J., H. G. Greene, M. P. Kennedy, and S. P. Bezore, 2003. Geologic Map of the Long Beach 30’ X 60’ Quadrangle,

California, Version 1.0, California Geological Survey Regional Geologic Map Series, Map No. 5, scale 1:100,000. 34 California Geological Survey, 2017. Regulatory Maps Portal website, located at

http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=regulatorymaps 35 City of Long Beach. General Plan, http://www.lbds.info/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=2544 36 Saucedo, G. J., H. G. Greene, M. P. Kennedy, and S. P. Bezore, 2003. Geologic Map of the Long Beach 30’ X 60’ Quadrangle,

California, Version 1.0, California Geological Survey Regional Geologic Map Series, Map No. 5, scale 1:100,000.



Page 58 PlaceWorks

the elementary school is not on a known fault. Therefore, there is no potential for the rupture of a known earthquake fault. No impact related to an earthquake rupture would occur.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

Less Than Significant Impact. A number of faults in the southern California area are considered active, and the school is expected to experience strong seismic ground shaking in the future. The portable buildings are constructed in accordance with applicable building codes and standards. The most recent state building standard is the 2016 California Building Code (CBC) (Title 24, Part 2, California Code of Regulations), with local, more restrictive amendments based on local geographic, topographic, or climatic conditions. The CBC’s provisions are for earthquake safety. Impacts related to seismic ground shaking would be less than significant.

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction refers to loose, saturated sand or gravel deposits that lose their load supporting capability when subjected to intense shaking. Any buildings or structures on these sediments may float, sink, or tilt as if on a body of water during intense shaking. Liquefaction potential varies based on three main contributing factors: 1) cohesionless, granular soils with relatively low densities (usually of Holocene age); 2) shallow groundwater (generally less than 50 feet); and 3) moderate to high seismic ground shaking. Lateral spreading refers to lateral displacement of large, surficial blocks of soil as a result of pore pressure buildup or liquefaction in a subsurface layer.

Based on a review of the California Geological Survey,37 historical groundwater in the area is deeper than 50 feet below ground surface, and soils beneath the school are late to middle Pleistocene age. Pleistocene soils tend to be dense and less prone to liquefaction. The site is not within a Zone of Required Investigation for Liquefaction, as shown on the State of California Seismic Hazard Zones, Los Alamitos Quadrangle map, issued by California Geological Survey in March 1999.38 Additionally, the portable buildings would be placed on existing asphalt paving. No impact related to liquefaction would occur.

Lateral spreading is a phenomenon where large blocks of intact, nonliquefied soil move downslope on a large liquefied substratum. The mass moves toward an unconfined area, such as a descending slope or stream-cut bluff, and has been known to move on slope gradients as little as one degree. A liquefaction-induced lateral spread landslide is unlikely because of the lack of liquefaction susceptibility and the relatively flat topography. No impact related to lateral spreading would occur.

The potential hazard posed by seismic settlement and/or collapse is considered low for the site, based on the density of the underlying Pleistocene soils. Strong ground shaking can cause settlement of soils underlying the site by allowing sediment particles to become more tightly packed. Artificial fills, if not

37 California Geological Survey, 1998. Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Los Alamitos 7.5-minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles and

Orange Counties, California, Seismic Hazard Zone Report 019, located at http://gmw.conservation.ca.gov/SHP/EZRIM/Reports/SHZR/SHZR_019_Los_Alamitos.pdf

38 California Geological Survey, 1999. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, Los Alamitos Quadrangle, scale 1:24,000, located at http://gmw.conservation.ca.gov/SHP/EZRIM/Maps/LOS_ALAMITOS_EZRIM.pdf



August 2017 Page 59

adequately compacted, may also experience seismically induced settlement. Because portable classrooms would be placed on top of existing hardscape, no significant impacts from seismic settlement or collapse would occur.

Seismically induced ground lurching occurs when soil or rock masses move at right angles to a cliff or steep slope in response to seismic waves. Structures built on these masses can experience significant lateral and vertical deformations if ground lurching occurs. The site is on relatively flat terrain, and the potential for ground lurching is considered low. Therefore, no significant adverse impact related to ground lurching is anticipated.

iv) Landslides?

No Impact. Marginally stable slopes (including existing landslides) may be subject to landslides caused by earthquakes. The landslide hazard depends on many factors, including existing slope stability, shaking potential, and presence of existing landslides. The site terrain is relatively flat, and no landslides have been mapped on the site.39 Therefore, landslides would not impact the site.

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

Less Than Significant Impact. Site soils have already been disturbed by development. Therefore, the loss of topsoil is not a potential impact. Soils are particularly prone to erosion during the grading phase of development, especially during heavy rains. No grading would be performed for this project. The ground surface of the area where the proposed portable classrooms will be placed is covered with asphalt and would remain intact during development. Impacts related to soil erosion would be less than significant.

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?

Less Than Significant Impact. Landsliding, lateral spreading, liquefaction and collapse have been discussed in Section 5.6-a-iii and would be less than significant. Subsidence of basins attributed to overdraft of groundwater aquifers or overpumping of petroleum reserves has been reported in various parts of southern California. Based on lack of shallow groundwater in the vicinity, overdraft of the groundwater aquifer beneath the site is unlikely. The school is within the boundaries of the Seal Beach oil field; however, subsidence effects have not been observed. 40,41 Impacts due to subsidence would be less than significant.

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?

39 Saucedo, G. J., H. G. Greene, M. P. Kennedy, and S. P. Bezore, 2003. Geologic Map of the Long Beach 30’ X 60’ Quadrangle,

California, Version 1.0, California Geological Survey Regional Geologic Map Series, Map No. 5, scale 1:100,000. 40 California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources, 2003. Seal Beach and Portion of Long Beach Oil Fields Map 132,

located at ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/oil/maps/dist1/132/Map132.pdf 41 City of Long Beach Gas and Oil Department, 2017. Subsidence webpage located at http://www.longbeach.gov/lbgo/about-

us/oil/subsidence/



Page 60 PlaceWorks

Less Than Significant Impact. Highly expansive soils swell when they absorb water and shrink as they dry and can cause structural damage to building foundations and roads. Thus, they are less suitable for development than nonexpansive soils. The site area is underlain by paralic soils (i.e., interfingered marine and land deposited).42 The site is currently developed with hardscape, which would be left intact, and portable classrooms would be placed on top. Based on the exclusive use of portable classrooms on intact hardscape, the potential impact associated with expansive soils is considered less than significant.

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

No Impact. The proposed project would not require the installation of a septic tank or alternative wastewater disposal system and would utilize the local sewer system. Therefore, no impacts would result from soil conditions in relation to septic tanks or other onsite wastewater disposal systems.

5.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Scientists have concluded that human activities are contributing to global climate change by adding large amounts of heat-trapping gases, known as greenhouse gases (GHGs), into the atmosphere. The primary source of these GHG is fossil fuel use. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has identified four major GHGs—water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and ozone (O3)—that are the likely cause of an increase in global average temperatures observed within the 20th and 21st centuries. Other GHG identified by the IPCC that contribute to global warming to a lesser extent include nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydro fluorocarbons, per fluorocarbons, and chlorofluorocarbons.43

Information on manufacture of cement, steel, and other “life cycle” emissions that would occur as a result of the project are not applicable and are not included in the analysis.44 Black carbon emissions are not included in the GHG analysis because CARB does not include this pollutant in the state’s AB 32 inventory and treats this short-lived climate pollutant separately.45 A background discussion on the GHG regulatory setting and GHG modeling can be found in Appendix A to this Initial Study.

Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

42 Saucedo, G. J., H. G. Greene, M. P. Kennedy, and S. P. Bezore, 2003. Geologic Map of the Long Beach 30’ X 60’ Quadrangle,

California, Version 1.0, California Geological Survey Regional Geologic Map Series, Map No. 5, scale 1:100,000 43 Water vapor (H2O) is the strongest GHG and the most variable in its phases (vapor, cloud droplets, ice crystals). However, water

vapor is not considered a pollutant, but part of the feedback loop rather than a primary cause of change. 44 Please see Appendix A for further details regarding “life cycle” emissions. 45 Particulate matter emissions, which include black carbon, are analyzed in Section 3.2, Air Quality. Black carbon contributes to

climate change both directly, by absorbing sunlight, and indirectly, by depositing on snow (making it melt faster) and by interacting with clouds and affecting cloud formation. Emissions of black carbon have sharply declined due to efforts to reduce on-road and off-road vehicle emissions, especially diesel particulate matter. The State's existing air quality policies will virtually eliminate black carbon emissions from on-road diesel engines within 10 years (California Air Resources Board. 2017, March. Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/shortlived/meetings/03142017/final_slcp_report.pdf.).



August 2017 Page 61

Would the project:

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

Less Than Significant Impact. Global climate change is not confined to a particular project area and is generally accepted as the consequence of global industrialization over the last 200 years. A typical project, even a very large one, does not generate enough greenhouse gas emissions on its own to influence global climate change significantly; hence, the issue of global climate change is, by definition, a cumulative environmental impact.

The proposed project would generate nominal operational GHG emissions from energy use (indirectly from purchased electricity use and directly through fuel consumed for building heating), mobile sources (burning of fossil fuels in vehicles), and area sources (e.g., equipment used on-site, consumer products, coatings) from the installed portables. Annual GHG emissions were calculated for construction of the project and are amortized over 30 years to account for GHG emissions from the construction phase of the project. Project-related GHG emissions are shown in Table 6. As discussed in Section 5.3(b) of this Initial Study, the analysis is based the students and staff relocating from Prisk ES, which represents the worst-case scenario. As shown in the table, implementation of the proposed project would generate 722 metric tons of carbon dioxide–equivalent (MTCO2e) emissions per year. The total increase of GHG emissions from the project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s bright-line threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e,46 and the proposed project’s cumulative contribution to GHG emissions is less than significant.

Table 6 Project-Related GHG Emissions Source MTCO2e/year Percent of Total

Proposed Project Area <1 0% Energy 31 4% Mobile 679 94% Waste 7 1% Water 4 1% Amortized Construction Emissionsa 1 <1% Total Emissions 722 NA SCAQMD’s Bright-line Threshold 3,000 NA Exceeds Bright-Line Threshold No NA Source: CalEEMod, Version 2016.3.1. Notes: Totals may not equal to the sum of the values shown due to rounding.

MTCO2e: metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent a Construction emissions are amortized over a 30-year project lifetime per recommended SCAQMD methodology.

46 This threshold is based on a combined threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e for all land use types, proposed by SCAQMD’s Working

Group based on a survey of the GHG emissions inventory of CEQA projects. Approximately 90 percent of CEQA projects’ GHG emissions inventories exceed 3,000 MTCO2e, which is based on a potential threshold approach cited in the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s white paper, “CEQA and Climate Change.”



Page 62 PlaceWorks

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Less Than Significant Impact. Applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions include CARB’s Scoping Plan and the Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). A consistency analysis with these plans is presented below.

CARB Scoping Plan

CARB’s Scoping Plan is California’s GHG reduction strategy to achieve the state’s GHG emissions reduction target established by Assembly Bill (AB) 32, which is to return to 1990 emission levels by year 2020. The CARB Scoping Plan is applicable to state agencies and is not directly applicable to cities/counties and individual projects. Nonetheless, the Scoping Plan has been the primary tool that is used to develop performance-based and efficiency-based CEQA criteria and GHG reduction targets for climate action planning efforts.

Since adoption of the 2008 Scoping Plan, state agencies have adopted programs identified in the plan, and the legislature has passed additional legislation to achieve the GHG reduction targets. Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions include the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, California Appliance Energy Efficiency regulations, California Renewable Energy Portfolio standard, changes in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, and other early action measures as necessary to ensure the state is on target to achieve the GHG emissions reduction goals of AB 32. Also, new buildings are required to comply with the 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and 2016 California Green Building Code. Recently, CARB released the Draft 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update to address the new 2030 interim target to achieve a 40 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2030, established by SB 32.47 While measures in the Scoping Plan apply to state agencies and not the proposed project, the project’s GHG emissions would be reduced from compliance with statewide measures that have been adopted since AB 32 and SB 32 were adopted.

SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy

In addition to AB 32, the California legislature passed SB 375 to connect regional transportation planning to land use decisions made at a local level. SB 375 requires the metropolitan planning organizations to prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) in their regional transportation plans to achieve the per capita GHG reduction targets. For the SCAG region, the SCS was adopted in April 2016.48 The SCS does not require that local general plans, specific plans, or zoning be consistent with the SCS, but provides incentives for consistency for governments and developers. The portables and new parking lot would be constructed to temporarily house students from nearby schools and provide additional parking capacity onsite, respectively.

47 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2017, January 20. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update: The Proposed Strategy

for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_pp_final.pdf. 48 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2016, April. The 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable

Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS): A Plan for Mobility, Accessibility, Sustainability, and a High Quality of Life. http://scagrtpscs.net/Documents/2016/final/f2016RTPSCS.pdf.



August 2017 Page 63

The proposed project would not interfere with SCAG’s ability to implement the regional strategies outlined in the RTP/SCS.

5.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or

disposal of hazardous materials?

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project involves the placement of interim housing (temporary portable buildings) and the expansion of an existing parking lot into an asphalt paved play area at Kettering ES. Project-related construction activities would require the use of hazardous materials such as fuels, lubricants, and greases in construction equipment and coatings used in construction. Onsite construction equipment might require routine or emergency maintenance that could result in the release of oil, diesel fuel, transmission fluid, or other materials. However, the materials used would not be in such quantities or stored in such a manner as to pose a significant safety hazard or environmental threat. These activities would also be short term or one time in nature. Significant amounts of hazardous materials would not be transported, used, or disposed of in conjunction with the operation of the proposed project. Maintenance of the new facility would likely require the use of cleaners, solvents, paints, and other janitorial products that are potentially hazardous. However, these materials would be utilized in relatively small quantities and would be stored in compliance with established state and federal requirements. With the exercise of normal operational safety practices currently employed at the school, impacts would be less than significant.

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is on a developed elementary school campus, which does not use any significant quantities of hazardous materials in its operation. Also, construction activities would not involve a significant amount of hazardous materials, and their use would be temporary. Project construction and operational workers would be trained on the proper use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials. Construction projects typically maintain supplies onsite for containing and cleaning small spills of hazardous materials. No significant impacts would result from the project.

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions, and no significant amounts of hazardous materials, substances, or wastes would be transported, used, or disposed of in conjunction with the facility’s operation. The onsite use of hazardous materials would be restricted to typical cleaning solvents and paints used by the janitorial and maintenance staff. These materials would be utilized in small quantities and stored in compliance with established state and federal requirements. No significant impacts would result from the project.



Page 64 PlaceWorks

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

No Impact. Based on a review of the Department of Toxic Substances Control’s EnviroStor and the State Water Resources Control Board’s GeoTracker websites, the site is not known to have hazardous waste.49,50 The elementary school campus is not on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. In addition, all construction activities would occur within the existing campus boundaries and would not disturb any offsite properties. No impact would occur.

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

No Impact. The school campus is not within an airport land use plan area or within two miles of a public use airport. The nearest public-use airport is Long Beach Municipal Airport, about three miles northwest of the school.51 Federal Aviation Regulation 77.23 generally requires a 200-foot height restriction for development in the height restriction zone. The school is not in a height restriction zone, and the proposed portables would not exceed 40 feet. No impact would 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?

No Impact. There are no private airstrips or heliports within two miles of the school campus. There is one heliport, the Kilroy AC8-Long Beach Heliport, approximately three miles northwest.52 The new portable buildings would not create a safety hazard. No impact would occur.

g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with any adopted emergency response or evacuation plans. The surrounding roadways would continue to provide emergency access to the school and to surrounding properties during construction. The proposed project would not necessitate any offsite roadway modifications. A new fire lane would be designated along the eastern campus boundary. This area would be kept clear for emergency vehicle ingress and egress by fire trucks, police units, and ambulance/paramedic vehicles. For the interim housing areas, emergency vehicular access would be provided via the new access drive and fire lane. In addition, project design and construction would be required to

49 Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2017. Accessed June 23, 2017. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/. 50 State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker, 2017. Accessed June 23, 2017. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ 51 Caltrans. 2016, March. 2016 California Public Use Airports and Federal Airfields.

http://dot.ca.gov/hq/planning/aeronaut/documents/maps/PublicUseAirports_MilitaryAirfieldsMap.pdf; and Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission. 2003. http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/project/aluc_airport-long-beach.pdf; and Airnav, LLC. 2017. Airport Information. http://www.airnav.com/airports.

52 Airnav.com. June 23, 2017, Airport Information. http://www.airnav.com/airports/.



August 2017 Page 65

comply with recommendations from the Long Beach Fire Department for reducing impacts to emergency response or evacuation plans. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access.

h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

No Impact. Kettering ES is in an urbanized, built-out portion of Long Beach and is outside of fire hazard severity zones designated by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. The nearby cities of Signal Hill, Carson, and Seal Beach are also not zoned as fire hazard severity zones. The nearest high severity zones are in the Whittier Hills, approximately 15 miles northeast of the project area.53 Future development under the proposed project would not pose wildfire-related hazards to people or structures. Therefore, no impact would occur.

5.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

No Impact. The school is within the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. Drainage and surface water discharges from the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Site preparation for the placement of the portables is not expected to have significant soil disturbance activities that would increase soil erosion and the amount of silt entering the local stormwater drainage system. Limited soil disturbance would occur for trenching for placement of subsurface utilities for the portables. The area that would be disturbed is less than one acre so the project is not required to complete and file Permit Registration Documents with the State Water Resources Control Board prior to the start of construction. No Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan is required. The portables are being placed in an area that is already developed and the amount of hardscaping is not being altered.

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

No Impact. Kettering ES is located over the Central Subbasin of the Coastal Plain of Los Angeles Groundwater Basin.54 The City of Long Beach Water Department supplies water to the school campus and the surrounding community. Groundwater from the Central Subbasin comprised about 60 percent of the

53 CalFire, 2011. http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps/FHSZ/los_angeles/Whittier.pdf. 54 Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2017, June 26. Groundwater Information Center Map Interactive Map Application.

https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/gicima/.



Page 66 PlaceWorks

city’s water supply, with the remaining 40 percent derived from the Colorado River watershed and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay Delta.55

The project does not propose groundwater wells that would extract groundwater from the aquifer. Construction and operation of the portables would not lower the groundwater table or deplete groundwater supplies. The school does not provide intentional groundwater recharge; therefore, the project would not interfere with groundwater recharge.

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?

No Impact. The portables would be placed on existing asphalt hardscape without altering drainage at the school. There are no streams or rivers on the campus. To the east of the school, the Los Cerritos Channel is part of a network of storm drains. The proposed project would not substantially alter existing drainage patterns or substantially increase stormwater runoff to existing drainage facilities. Drainage from the school would continue to flow into existing storm drain systems, with no substantial increase in stormwater runoff.

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?

No Impact. Drainage pattern would be similar to existing conditions, as discussed above in item (c). The project would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the school or area. No additional surface area would be paved that could result in an increase in the amount of surface runoff. Thus, project development would not increase the amount of surface runoff on- or off-site, and no impacts would occur.

e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

No Impact. The project would not increase the amount of runoff water generated from the school. Runoff from the school would continue to flow into existing storm drains with no increase. The proposed project would not result in on- or offsite flooding. Impacts would not be significant.

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

No Impact. A significant impact would occur if the proposed project would substantially degrade water quality. The placement of portables on asphalt paved surface would not alter water quality. The proposed project would be required to comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations.

55 City of Long Beach 2017, June 2016. Long Beach Water Department Sources of Water. http://www.lbwater.org/groundwater-

supply-brief-history.



August 2017 Page 67

g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

No Impact. The proposed project would not develop housing. No impact would occur.

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?

No Impact. The school is not in a 100-year or 500-year flood zone.56 No impact would occur.

i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

No Impact. The school is not in a flood zone on the FEMA flood maps.57 The proposed project would not increase the flooding hazard on the existing campus and would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding. No impact involving flooding would occur, including as a result of the failure of a levee or dam.

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

Less Than Significant Impact. A seiche is a surface wave created when a body of water is shaken, usually by earthquake activity. Seiches are of concern relative to water storage facilities because inundation from a seiche can occur if the wave overflows a containment wall, such as the wall of a reservoir, water storage tank, dam, or other artificial body of water. Although there are no large water tanks in the area that could impact the school, there are dams in the region that could generate flooding. Thirteen dams in the greater Los Angeles area moved or cracked during the 1994 Northridge earthquake, but none were severely damaged. This low damage level was due in part to completion of the retrofitting of dams and reservoirs pursuant to the 1972 State Dam Safety Act.

The closest water feature is Los Cerritos Channel to the east. Because of the shape of the channel and the distance from the school, any seiche risk from the channel would be negligible. Impacts from potential seiche would be less than significant. A tsunami is earthquake-induced flooding that is created from a large displacement of the ocean floor. Based on the Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning for the Los Alamitos Quadrangle, the school is not within a tsunami inundation area.58 The project is not at risk for tsunami impacts. A mudflow is a landslide event in which the debris, land mass, and soils are saturated during their displacement. The project is on a land mass that is relatively flat, with no slopes near the school that are capable of generating a mudflow. No mudflow impact would occur.

56 FEMA Flood Map Service Center, 2017. June 26.

www.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=550%20Silvera%20Avenue%2C%20Long%20Beach%2C%20CA#searchresultsanchor

57 FEMA Flood Map Service Center, 2017. June 26. www.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=550%20Silvera%20Avenue%2C%20Long%20Beach%2C%20CA#searchresultsanchor

58 California Geological Survey, 2009. Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, State of California, County of Los Angeles, Los Alamitos Quadrangle/Seal Beach Quadrangle, scale 1:24,000.



Page 68 PlaceWorks

5.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING a) Physically divide an established community?

No Impact. The school campus and surrounding land is fully developed with urban land uses, primarily residential. The proposed project would take place within the school campus boundaries and would not divide an established community. No impact would occur.

b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

No Impact. The school is zoned PD-1 (Planned Development). PD-1 is the Southeast Area Development and Improvement Plan (SEADIP).59 The General Plan land use designation for the school is Institutions/Schools.60 New construction on the school campus would not conflict with existing plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects. No impact would occur.

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

No Impact. The school campus is completely developed and located in an urbanized area; it is not in a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. No impact would occur.

5.11 MINERAL RESOURCES a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region

and the residents of the state?

No Impact. The school campus is mapped Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ-3) by the California Geological Survey, indicating that it is in an area where the significance of mineral deposits cannot be determined.61 No active mines are mapped within several miles of the school.62 There are no oil fields near the school campus. The closest active gas and oil production well is approximately half a mile southwest and operated by Chevron.63 The school campus is fully developed and is not available for mining. Therefore, development of the proposed project would not cause a loss of availability of a known mineral resource valuable to the region and the state, and no impact would occur.

59 Long Beach zoning map. Prepared by Dept. of Planning & Building and Dept. of Technology Services.


60 Long Beach General Plan. 1989. Land Use Element. http://www.lbds.info/planning/advance_planning/general_plan.asp 61 California Geological Survey (CGS). 1994a. Generalized Mineral Land Classification Map of Los Angeles County: South Half.

Open File Report 94-14, Plate 1B. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/ofr/OFR_94-14/OFR_94-14_Plate1B.pdf. 62 Office of Mine Reclamation (OMR). 2017, June 29. Mines Online. http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mol/mol-app.html. 63 Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR). 2017, June 29. DOGGR Well Finder.

http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dog/Pages/WellFinder.aspx.



August 2017 Page 69

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

No Impact. No mining sites are identified in the City of Long Beach General Plan.64 Therefore, development of the proposed project would not cause a loss of availability of a mining site, and no impact would occur.

5.12 NOISE Noise is defined as unwanted sound and is known to have several adverse effects on people, including hearing loss, speech and sleep interference, physiological responses, and annoyance. Based on these known adverse effects of noise, federal, state, and city governments have established criteria to protect public health and safety and to prevent the disruption of certain human activities, such as communication and sleep. Additional information on noise and vibration fundamentals, existing regulations, and technical standards, project-specific background information are in Appendix B of this Initial Study.

The following are brief definitions of terminology used in this section:

Sound. A disturbance created by a vibrating object, which, when transmitted by pressure waves through a medium such as air, is capable of being detected by a receiving mechanism, such as the human ear or a microphone.

Noise. Sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or otherwise undesirable.

Decibel (dB). A unitless measure of sound on a logarithmic scale.

A-Weighted Decibel (dBA). An overall frequency-weighted sound level in decibels that approximates the frequency response of the human ear.

Equivalent Continuous Noise Level (Leq). The mean of the noise level, energy averaged over the measurement period.

Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period, with 5 dB added from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and 10 dB from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM.

Existing Noise Environment and Sensitive Receptors

The nearest sensitive receptors would be the single-family homes approximately 165 to 475 feet to the south and to west of the interim portable buildings. The single-family homes to the west would experience much less project-related noise than those directly to the south, because the existing school buildings are expected to shield much of the noise. 64 City of Long Beach. 1973. Long Beach General Plan. http://www.lbds.info/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=4092.



Page 70 PlaceWorks

The primary noise sources around the school is roadway noise along 7th Street, residential operations (i.e., property maintenance, people talking), and to a lesser extent, roadway noise along Silvera Avenue and other nearby residential roadways. In general, the noise environment at the school is similar to a medium-density urban residential community.

a) Result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

Less Than Significant Impact.

Applicable Standards

City of Long Beach Noise Element The noise element serves as a tool for local planners to use in achieving and maintaining compatible land use with environmental noise levels. The City’s noise element, adopted in 1975, includes an assessment of the existing community noise environment, including surveys of residents, and an action plan for achieving goals for the future noise environment. The noise element is designed to integrate noise considerations into land use planning to prevent noise/land use conflicts. The applicable Long Beach noise standards are implemented and enforced by the municipal code, as shown below.

Municipal Code Chapter 8.80 (Noise) of the Long Beach Municipal Code provides regulations to control unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise and vibration.65 Exterior and interior noise limits based on land use are shown in Table 7 and Table 8. Only the land use types associated with the proposed project are included in the tables below; detailed portions of the Long Beach Municipal Code are included in Appendix B.

Table 7 Exterior Noise Limits

Receiving Land Use District Type of Land Use Allowable Exterior Noise Level (dBA)

7:00 AM–10:00 PM 10:00 PM–7:00 AM District One Residential 50 45

Source: Long Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 8.80 (Noise).

The following adjustments are applicable to the exterior standards in Table 7:

If the noise consists entirely of impact noise, simple tone noise, speech, music, or any combination thereof, each of the noise levels shall be reduced by 5 dBA. Noise levels at residential properties may not exceed the standards:

for a cumulative period of more than thirty minutes in any hour;

plus 5 dBA for a cumulative period of more than fifteen minutes in any hour;

65 Long Beach, California, Municipal Code Chapter 8.80 (Ord. C-5371 § 1 (part), 1977: prior code § 4430)



August 2017 Page 71

plus 10 dBA for a cumulative period of more than five minutes in any hour;

plus 15 dBA for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour; or

plus 20 dBA for any period of time.

If the ambient noise level exceeds any of the first four noise limit categories above, the cumulative period applicable to said category shall be increased to reflect said ambient noise level. If the ambient noise level exceeds the fifth noise limit category, the maximum allowable noise level under said category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level.

Table 8 Interior Noise Limits

Receiving Land Use District Type of Land Use Allowable Interior Noise Level (dBA)

7:00 AM–10:00 PM 10:00 PM–7:00 AM All Residential 45 35 All School 45a N/A

Source: Long Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 8.80 (Noise). a While school is in session.

The following adjustments are applicable to the interior standards in Table 8.

No person shall operate, or cause to be operated, any source of sound indoors at any location within the incorporated limits of the City or allow the creation of any indoor noise which causes the noise level when measured inside the receiving dwelling unit to exceed:

The noise standard (above) for that land use district for a cumulative period of more than five minutes in any hour;

The noise standard plus 5 dB for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour; or

The noise standard plus 10 dB or the maximum measured ambient, for any period of time.

If the measured indoor ambient level exceeds that permissible within any of the first two noise limit categories in this section, the allowable noise exposure standard shall be increased in five decibel (5 dB) increments in each category as appropriate to reflect the indoor ambient noise level. In the event the indoor ambient noise level exceeds the third noise limit category, the maximum allowable indoor noise level under said category shall be increased to reflect the maximum indoor ambient noise level.

Additionally, Table 9 shows adjustments to be made to the noise limits based on background noise levels.

Table 9 Background Noise Correction Difference between Total Noise and Background Noise Alone (dB) Amount to Be Subtracted from [Total Measured Noise Level]a (dB)

6–8 1 9–10 0.5

Source: Long Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 8.80 (Noise). a Text in brackets replaces online code for clarity.



Page 72 PlaceWorks

In addition, Section 8.80.130 (Disturbing Noises Prohibited) of the municipal code states that it is unlawful to make any loud, unnecessary, and unusual noise that disturbs the peace or quiet or causes discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person, regardless of whether the noise level exceeds the standards specified above.

Municipal Code Section 8.80.202 contains standards and limits that deal with construction noise. Details of these criteria and the related impacts are discussed below in impact item d.

Impact Analysis The proposed project consists of the installation and use of interim housing (temporary portable buildings) and expansion of the existing parking lot at Kettering ES. The temporary portable buildings are required to house students during modernization of eight LBUSD schools over the next eight years.

Even though project-related operations are technically temporary, due to the total project duration (eight years), project-related operations are treated as a long-term noise impact.

Noise impacts could result from increases in project-generated traffic, increases in outdoor activities, and from stationary noise sources such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units and other mechanical equipment. The following discusses noise increases at sensitive receptors from project-related traffic and operations sources.

Operational Noise Impacts Noise can be broken down into three categories. The first is “audible”, which refer to increases in noise level that are perceptible to humans. Audible increases in general community noise levels generally refer to a change of 3 dB or more since this level has been found to be the threshold of perceptibility in exterior environments. The second category, “potentially audible”, refers to a change in noise level between 1 and 3 dB. The last category includes changes in noise level of less than 1 dB that are typically “inaudible” to the human ear except under quiet conditions in controlled environments. Only “audible” changes in noise levels at sensitive receptor locations are considered a potential impact. (Note that a doubling of traffic flows [i.e., 10,000 vehicles per day to 20,000 per day] would be needed to create a 3 dB increase in traffic-generated noise levels.)

A significant stationary-source noise impact would occur if the activities or equipment at the school produce noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors in excess of local standards. The Kettering ES campus currently has an enrollment of 349 students. Other LBUSD schools would use the portable buildings each year; therefore total number of students at Kettering ES would increase over 7 years of school modernization period (one year would not see an increase).



August 2017 Page 73

Project-Related Stationary Noise

The portable buildings are expected to increase the noise environment at the school. The interim housing facilities would introduce additional mechanical equipment noise to the area, and beginning in 2017 when they are operational.

Mechanical Equipment Noise

The modernization of Kettering ES would include the installation of a new HVAC system as well as other minor mechanical equipment upgrades. This equipment is expected to be more efficient than the equipment currently used at the school, and would not result in noise increases. The 12 interim portable buildings would also have HVAC systems and other minor mechanical equipment. Given the distances to the nearest residential receptors (the closest house is approximately 230 feet to the south) plus the barrier attenuation provided by the system enclosure (approximately 10 dB),66 noise from the HVAC system would be attenuated by an estimated 45 to 50 decibels. Assuming a sound rating of 80 dBA Leq at 3 feet for each of the 12 portable building HVAC units, distance and shielding attenuation from other portables, sound levels are estimated at approximately 43 dBA at the nearest receptors, the homes to the south. This estimate does not exceed the municipal code noise level limit of 50 dBA or any of the adjusted noise level limits; therefore, mechanical equipment noise would be less than significant.

Student Operational Noise

An increased number of students on campus would increase the noise. The existing number of students was compared with the future number of students to determine the decibel increase over existing conditions.67 To simplify this analysis, it was assumed that the sound power of one student is proportional to the sound power of 100 students (see Table 10).

Table 10 Operational Noise Increases

Interim Year School Total Number of Students Decibel Increase above Existing Conditions

(349 students)(dB)a 2018–2019 Kettering ES 349 0 2019–2020 Mann ES 534 1.9b

2020–2021 Bixby ES 544 1.9 2021–2022 Fremont ES 590 2.3 2022–2023 Naples ES 535 1.9 2023–2024 Bryant ES 519 1.7 2024–2025 Gant ES 609 2.4 2025–2026 Prisk ES 599 2.4 a dB increase = 10*LOG (future/existing) b e.g. 10*LOG (534/349) = 1.9 dB

66 RCNM Appendix A: Practices for Calculating Estimated Shielding. www.fwha.dot.gov. 67 Basic Methodology gathered from: Harris, Cyril M. Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control, Third Edition.

Acoustical Society of America. Woodbury, NY. 1998.



Page 74 PlaceWorks

As shown in Table 10, operational noise increases due to an increased number of students is not expected to exceed 3 dB threshold, and therefore would not result in any audible increases to the noise environment. Increases in student-generated noise would be less than significant.

Project-Related Roadway Noise For the 2018-2019 school year, Kettering ES 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade students would attend classes in the portable buildings while their classrooms are being modernized; therefore, the 2018-2019 school year would not experience traffic increases over existing conditions. Beginning in the 2019-2020 school year, as three grades from other schools start classroom instruction in the portable buildings pick-up and drop-off traffic would increase. Traffic noise calculations are shown in Table 11.

Based on the FHWA-RD77-108 roadway noise calculation method,68 noise levels along Silvera Avenue and 5th Street were analyzed for existing traffic conditions and for each year that the portable buildings would be used by the seven other schools. A noise level increase of 3 dB or more is considered a potentially significant impact.

Noise modeling shows that average noise levels along Silvera Avenue and 5th Street currently range from approximately 53 dBA to 55 dBA CNEL, calculated at a distance of 50 feet from the centerline of the road. Noise levels for existing and future conditions along roadways are shown in Table 11.

Table 11 Project-Related Roadway Noise Level Estimates

Roadway Segment

CNEL at 50 feet from Roadway Centerline (dBA)

Existing 2019–2020 Mann ES

2020–2021 Bixby ES

2021–2022 Fremont ES

2022–2023 Naples ES

2023–2024 Bryant ES

2024–2025 Gant ES

2025–2026 Prisk ES

Silvera Avenue north of 5th Street 55 55 (0.7) 55 (0.7) 55 (0.7) 55 (0.8) 55 (0.6) 56 (1.2) 56 (1.3)

Silvera Avenue south of 5th Street 54 54 (0) 54 (0) 54 (0) 54 (0.3) 54 (0) 54 (0) 54 (0)

5th Street east of Silvera Avenue 53 55 (1.6) 55 (1.5) 55 (1.5) 55 (1.8) 55 (1.4) 56 (2.4) 56 (2.6)

5th Street west of Silvera Avenue 53 54 (0.9) 54 (0.8) 54 (0.7) 54 (0.8) 54 (0.8) 54 (1.3) 54 (1.5)

Note: Levels calculated by FHWA-RD77-108 Calculation Method. -Parentheses indicate the noise increase over existing conditions (dB). -Noise levels are rounded to the nearest whole number. Detailed results of the project-related roadway noise levels are included in Appendix B

These roads would experience negligible increase in noise from the additional traffic from other schools. The highest increase in roadway noise would be 2.6 dB when Prisk ES students attend classes at Kettering ES, and falls below the threshold of human perceptibility.

68 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1978, December. Federal Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model. U.S. Department

of Transportation (DoT) Report No. FHWA-RD77-108. Compiled by Barry, T.M., and Regan, J.



August 2017 Page 75

The proposed project would result in audible increases in traffic-related noise along the surrounding roadways. Exposure of persons to noise levels in excess of established thresholds from project-related roadway noise would be less than significant.

b) Result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project includes the installation of 12 temporary portable buildings and the expansion of the existing parking lot at Kettering ES. Operation of the temporary guest school does not include equipment that has the potential to generate groundborne vibration.

Vibration Standards

According to Section 8.80.200 of the Long Beach Municipal Code (Noise Disturbances, Acts Specified), it is illegal to operate any device that creates vibration above the vibration perception threshold of an individual at the property boundary of the source if on private property, or at 150 feet from the source in a public space. For the purposes of this section, “vibration perception threshold” means the minimum ground- or structure-borne vibrational motion necessary to cause a normal person to be aware of the vibration.

This analysis uses the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment for vibration velocity levels and vibration velocity perception threshold.69 The Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment states that a vibration velocity level of 78 VdB70 is the threshold for a “barely feelable vibration,” and this level is used as the threshold for a residential daytime receptor.

Impact Analysis Construction activities can generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction procedures, the equipment used, and the proximity to vibration-sensitive uses. Operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in amplitude with distance from the source. The effect on buildings near a construction site varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and receptor building construction. The generation of vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. Ground vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that can damage structures, but can reach perceptible levels at buildings close to a construction site. Rock blasting and impact pile driving generate the highest levels of vibration. However, construction for this project would not require impact pile driving, blasting, or other vibration-intensive equipment such as vibratory rollers or clam shovels.

Vibration is typically noticed nearby when objects in a building generate noise from rattling windows or picture frames. It is typically not perceptible outdoors, and therefore impacts are based on the distance to the

69 Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006, May. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. U.S. Department of

Transportation (DoT). FTA-VA-90-1003-06. 70 Root-Mean-Squared (RMS) Velocity in decibels (VdB) referenced at 1 microinch per second.



Page 76 PlaceWorks

nearest building.71 As shown in Table 12, project-related construction activities are not expected to generate vibration levels that would exceed the FTA’s vibration perception threshold of 78 VdB. Therefore, groundborne vibration impacts related to project construction would be less than significant

Table 12 Construction-Related Vibration

Vibration-Sensitive Use Vibration Level (VdB)

At 25 Feet from Source (reference) At 80 Feet from Source Asphalt Pavera 58 43 ConcreteTrucka 86 71

Source: Vibration reference levels- Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006, May. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. U.S. Department of Transportation (DoT). FTA-VA-90-1003-06.

Notes: Root-Mean-Squared (RMS) vibration velocity level (VdB) referenced 1 microinch/second. Distances are from the center of the applicable construction phase area to the nearest home to the south. a vibration levels for asphalt paver is similar to FTA rated small bulldozer, and concrete truck is similar to FTA rated loaded truck.

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

Less Than Significant Impact. As presented in impact item a, above, project-generated operational noise from traffic, stationary noise sources (e.g., mechanical systems), and operational activities would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels. Therefore, these ongoing activities would generate less-than-significant noise impacts.

d) Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

Less Than Significant Impact. The project proposes to install 12 interim housing units and expand the existing parking lot at Kettering ES. For this construction noise analysis, construction activities were split into two groups based on their distance to the nearest receptors. The construction phases and the dates of their durations are:

Portables Installation: October to December 2017. Site preparation, utility trenching, portable installation, finishing.

Parking Lot Expansion: July to August 2018. Parking lot expansion, asphalt paving, curbs and driveway widening.

Noise generated during construction is based on the type of equipment used, the location of the equipment relative to sensitive receptors, and the timing and duration of the noise-generating activities.

71 Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006, May. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. U.S. Department of

Transportation (DoT). FTA-VA-90-1003-06.



August 2017 Page 77

Construction Noise Standards

Under Section 8.80.202 (Construction Activity, Noise Regulations), the City restricts construction activities that “produce loud or unusual noise which annoys or disturbs a reasonable person of normal sensitivity” to the following hours:

Monday through Friday (including national holidays): 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM.

Saturday: 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM.

Construction is prohibited on Sundays unless a permit has been issued.

Impact Analysis Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during construction: (1) mobile-source noise from transport of workers, material deliveries, and debris and soil haul and (2) stationary-source noise from use of construction equipment. Existing uses surrounding the school would be exposed to some construction noise.

Construction Vehicles Noise Considering the small scale of the construction activities associated with the project, trucks, material delivery vehicles and worker trips would not to result in significant increases in the total noise environment around the school.

Individual construction vehicle pass-bys may create momentary noise levels of up to approximately 85 dBA (Lmax) at 50 feet from the vehicle, but these occurrences—although potentially audible for a few seconds—would generally be infrequent. Due to the infrequency of events, their relatively short-lived durations, and their commonality with existing truck pass-bys, construction vehicle movement noise would be less than significant.

Construction Equipment Noise Each stage of construction involves the use of different kinds of construction equipment/processes depending on the work, and therefore has its own distinct noise characteristics. The driveway and asphalt phases are expected to generate the highest levels of noise because they require the largest, most powerful equipment. Short-term noise can be also associated with site preparation, utility trenching, and placement of portable buildings.

Noise attenuation due to distance, the number and type of equipment, and the load and power requirements to accomplish tasks at each construction phase would result in different construction-related noise levels at any given receptor. Distances to the nearest receptor buildings are measured from the applicable construction phase area to the nearest residential receptor. Table 13 lists construction noise levels per construction phase as measured to the nearest single-family homes.



Page 78 PlaceWorks

Table 13 Project-Related Construction Noise Levels Receiver Distance (feet) Sound Level per Construction Phase, dBA Leq

Parking Lot Expansion Receiver Distance (feet) Driveway Work Concrete Work Asphalt Paving - Single-Family Homes to the South 165 73 73 71 - Single-Family Homes to the West 375 61* 61* 59* - Portables Building Installation

Receiver Distance (feet) Site Preparation Utility Trenching Portable Installation

Architectural Finishing

Single-Family Homes to the South 250 69 61 56 63 Single-Family Homes to the West 475 58* 50* 45* 52* Note: Calculations performed with the FHWA’s RCNM software and included in Appendix B. Distances are from the center of the applicable construction phase area to the nearest single-family home to the south. * A 5 dB attenuation was applied to the single-family homes to the west due to shielding effects from the existing Kettering ES Buildings72

As a worse case scenario, this analysis considers projected noise levels from the simultaneous use of all construction equipment at spatially averaged distances (i.e., from the center of the applicable construction phase area) to the nearest residential receptor.

Using information provided by the LBUSD and the methodologies and inputs employed in the air quality assessment, the expected construction equipment mix was estimated and categorized by construction activity. The installation of the portables is expected to last approximately three months, and the parking lot expansion is expected to last approximately one month, plus approximately two days for the driveway work. The associated, aggregate sound levels for both periods of construction—grouped by construction activity—are summarized in Table 13.

The nearest single-family homes are 165 to 250 feet to the south of the center of the construction activities. At this distance, composite construction noise would be reduced to approximately 73 dBA Leq (due to distance attenuation alone) during the loudest period of construction. Noise levels from construction activities would result in lower noise levels at more distant receptors due to increasing attenuation with increasing distance from the sources.

Since construction activities would be limited to relatively small- to medium-sized equipment (i.e., loaders, trencher, pavers, and a crane), would take place during the daytime hours when many people would be out of their houses, and would conform to the time-of-day restrictions of the Long Beach Municipal Code, construction noise impacts would be less than significant.

72 FHWA. 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), Version 1.0: Appendix A: Practices for Calculating Estimated

Shielding. www.fwha.dot.gov.



August 2017 Page 79

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

No Impact. The school campus is not within an airport land use plan area or within two miles of a public use airport. The nearest public-use airport is Long Beach Municipal Airport, approximately three miles from the school.73 Therefore, the project would not expose people onsite to excessive noise levels from aircraft approaching or departing the airport, and no impact would occur.

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

No Impact. The nearest heliport or other private air strips to the school is the Kilroy AC8-Long Beach Heliport, approximately 3.25 miles to the northwest.74 At this distance, aircraft noise would be negligible the new portable buildings would not expose students or staff excessive noise levels.

5.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new

homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

No Impact. The proposed project would not induce population growth. The project would make physical changes at an existing campus. New roads, expanded utility lines, and housing that could induce population growth would not be constructed as part of the school temporary housing project. No impacts related to population growth would occur.

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

No Impact. No housing would be displaced, and no replacement housing would be required. The proposed project would place temporary portables at an existing elementary school campus. No housing impacts would occur.

c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

No Impact. There are no residents onsite. No impact would occur.

73 Caltrans. 2016, March. 2016 California Public Use Airports and Federal Airfields.

http://dot.ca.gov/hq/planning/aeronaut/documents/maps/PublicUseAirports_MilitaryAirfieldsMap.pdf; and Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission. 2003. http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/project/aluc_airport-long-beach.pdf; and Airnav, LLC. 2017. Airport Information. http://www.airnav.com/airports.

74 Airnav, LLC. 2017. Airport Information. http://www.airnav.com/airports.



Page 80 PlaceWorks

5.14 PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

a) Fire protection?

Less Than Significant Impact. The Long Beach Fire Department (LBFD) currently provides fire protection and emergency medical services to the school. The nearest two LBFD stations to the school campus are Station 22 at 6340 East Atherton Street in Long Beach about 2.2 miles to the northwest, and Station 14 at 5200 East Eliot Street in Long Beach about 2 miles to the west. The proposed project temporarily increases the enrollment at the site by 170 to 260 students for seven years when the modernization occurs at the other elementary school sites. When all modernization has been completed, the temporary portable buildings at Kettering ES would be removed and would not increase the need for fire protection services.

Impacts to public services such as fire protection are generally due to population growth. The proposed project is temporarily relocating students from one school site in the area to another and would not cause population growth. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially increase demands for fire or emergency services or generate the need for additional fire protection facilities; impacts would be less than significant.

b) Police protection?

Less Than Significant Impact. Law enforcement and police protection services at Kettering ES are provided by the City of Long Beach Police Department. The City of Long Beach Police Department’s East Patrol Division at 3800 East Willow Street, approximately 4.5 miles to the northwest, serves the school site. 75

The demand for police protection services generally corresponds to population. Since the proposed project would not increase the student population or substantially intensify use of the campus, project implementation would not substantially increase the demand for police services or generate a need for additional law enforcement facilities. Impacts to police protection services would be less than significant.

c) Schools?

No Impact. School service needs are related to the size of the residential population, the geographic area served, and community characteristics. The project is in response to the need for modernization of existing elementary schools, not in response to population growth.

75 Long Beach Police Department, East Patrol Division. http://www.longbeach.gov/police/about-the-lbpd/bureaus/patrol-

bureau/east-patrol-division/.



August 2017 Page 81

d) Parks?

No Impact. Impacts to parks are generally caused by population or employment growth. However, the proposed project accommodates existing students. The project would not increase community use of school facilities, or add new residents to the area that would increase use of neighborhood or regional parks. Implementation of the proposed project would not adversely impact parks in the school’s vicinity.

e) Other public facilities?

No Impact. The proposed project would not result in impacts associated with the provision of other new or physically altered public facilities (e.g., libraries, hospitals, childcare, teen or senior centers). Physical impacts to public services are usually associated with population in-migration and growth, which increase the demand for public services and facilities. The proposed project would not result in an increase in school enrollment or capacity or induce population growth. Therefore, no impacts to other public facilities would occur.

5.15 RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other

recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

No Impact. The proposed project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. The proposed project would not accommodate an increase population in the surrounding community. The project includes interim housing for students from nearby schools while their school is modernized. Therefore, it would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities and would not cause physical deterioration of these facilities. No impacts to existing parks would occur.

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

No Impact. The proposed project would not include or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. The proposed project would not affect any onsite recreational facilities, and no replacement of recreational facilities would be necessary. No impact would occur.



Page 82 PlaceWorks

5.16 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for

the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

Less Than Significant Impact.

Definition of Level of Service

Roadway capacity is generally limited by the ability to move vehicles through intersections. A level of service (LOS) is a standard performance measurement to describe the operating characteristics of a street system in terms of the level of congestion or delay experienced by motorists. Service levels range from A through F, which relate to traffic conditions from best (uncongested, free-flowing conditions) to worst (total breakdown with stop-and-go operation). LOS is calculated for weekday traffic peak hours. The peak hours selected for analysis are the highest volumes that occur in four consecutive 15-minute periods from 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM on weekdays.

Intersection LOS

There are two study intersections, one signalized and one unsignalized. In compliance with City of Long Beach methodologies to evaluate traffic impacts, the LOS analysis for study signalized intersections was conducted by using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology, and the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology was utilized to evaluate unsignalized intersections.76

The ICU methodology is used to evaluate signalized intersections based on the hourly traffic volumes by lane, the approach lane configuration, and the signal phasing. The ICU value is essentially a ratio of traffic volume divided by the capacity of the intersection, commonly referred as V/C ratio. The LOS corresponds to the ICU value, which is the V/C ratio.

The 2010 Highway Capacity Manual includes a methodology to calculate LOS in terms of control delay (in seconds per vehicle).77 The intersection LOS analysis is based on the traffic volumes observed during the peak-hour conditions. Per the HCM methodology, overall average intersection delay at all-way-stop intersections was calculated, and the worst-case approach delay was calculated at cross-street-stop intersections. The LOS corresponds to the delay calculated.

Table 14 describes the level of service concept and the operating conditions expected under each level of service for signalized and unsignalized intersections.

76 City of Long Beach. 2013. City of Long Beach General Plan Mobility Element. http://www.lbds.info/mobility_element/. 77 Transportation Research Board. 2010. Highway Capacity Manual. Available at: http://hcm.trb.org/



August 2017 Page 83

Table 14 Intersection Level of Service Descriptions

LOS Description ICU Method (V/C Ratio)

HCM Method (Delay)

A Excellent operation. All approaches to the intersection appear quite open, turning movements are easily made, and nearly all drivers find freedom of operation.

0.00 to 0.60 0 to 10.00

B Very good operation. Many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within platoons of vehicles. This represents stable flow. An approach to an intersection may occasionally be fully utilized and traffic queues start to form.

0.60 to 0.70 10.01 to 15.00

C Good operation. Occasionally drivers may have to wait more than 60 seconds, and back-ups may develop behind turning vehicles. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted.

0.70 to 0.80 15.01 to 25.00

D Fair operation. Cars are sometimes required to wait more than 60 seconds during short peaks. There are no longstanding traffic queues.

0.80 to 0.90 25.01 to 35.00

E Poor operation. Some longstanding vehicular queues develop on critical approaches to intersections. Delays may be up to several minutes.

0.90 to 1.00 35.01 to 50.00

F Forced flow. Represents jammed conditions. Back-ups from locations downstream or on the cross street may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the intersection approach lanes; therefore, volumes carried are not predictable. Potential for stop-and-go-type traffic flow.

> 1.00 50.01 and up

Source: City of Long Beach. 2013. City of Long Beach General Plan Mobility Element. http://www.lbds.info/mobility_element/. Notes: V/C = volume per capacity ratio

Delay is in vehicles per second.

Existing Conditions

Roadways Regional access to the school is provided by 7th Street, where most vehicles turn directly onto Silvera Avenue. Westbound vehicles are allowed to U-turn at Margo Avenue in order to make the turn onto Silvera Avenue from 7th Street. During traffic observations, it was noted that vehicles also arrived at the school campus via 5th Street and 6th Street. When leaving the campus, vehicles could three-point turn in a residential driveway or turn around in the cul-de-sac at 5th Street to return to 7th Street. Most westbound vehicles using 7th Street are assumed to take 5th Street to Margo Avenue before turning left back onto 7th Street.

Pacific Coast Highway (State Route 1) is the main east-west regional corridor in Long Beach. It is six lanes south of 7th Street, and four lanes north of 7th Street. It is approximately one mile west of the school campus. It has a speed limit of 40 mph, and parking is permitted on the westbound side of the street north of 7th Street.



Page 84 PlaceWorks

7th Street is an east-west street classified as a boulevard in the City’s Mobility Element.78 It has six lanes west of the project and four lanes east of the project. It has a speed limit of 40 mph and borders the project to the north. No street parking is permitted in the vicinity of the project.

Margo Avenue is a north-south local street with two lanes. The speed limit is 25 mph. Curbside parking is permitted on both sides of the street south of 6th Street.

Silvera Avenue is a north-south local street with two lanes that borders the project to the west and terminates at 7th Street to the north. On the east side of the street, a portion of the curb with a length of approximately 230 feet is painted green with a limit of 30 minutes to facilitate student pick-up and drop-off. A length of curb of approximately 100 feet is dedicated for school bus parking only. South of this area, a curb length of approximately 200 feet is dedicated for student drop-off and pick-up for private vehicles from 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM on school days; parking is not allowed on school days between those hours. On the west side of the street, parking is permitted for a period of 2 hours, Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM, except holidays.

5th Street is an east-west local street with two lanes that terminates at Margo Avenue to the west and borders the project to the south. Curbside parking is permitted on the south side of the street for a period of 2 hours, Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM, except holidays.

Intersections The intersection of 7th Street and Margo Avenue is signalized, with crosswalks on all sides. The intersection of 5th Street and Silvera Avenue is controlled by all-way stop signs and has crosswalks on all sides.

Sidewalks and Bicycle Facilities There are sidewalks along both sides of Pacific Coast Highway, 7th Street, Margo Avenue, Silvera Avenue, and 5th Street. Bicycle Route 18 runs along 7th Street and Margo Avenue, and Bicycle Route 10 borders the project to the east. Long Beach Bikeway Route 10 connects to the various other paths and bike routes, providing regional bicycle and pedestrian access throughout the city.

Public Transit Because of the proximity of the study area to Cal State Long Beach, it is served by multiple transit lines, including Long Beach Transit bus routes 81 and 173, LA Metro route 577, and Orange County Transportation Authority routes 1, 50, 60, and 560 running east-west on 7th Street. The closest stop is approximately 0.5 mile west of the intersection at 7th Street and Margo Avenue/Campus Road.

Student Drop-off and Parking Kindergarten students are separated into two groups; the first group begins school at 8:00 AM and is dismissed at 12:20 PM, and the second group begins at 9:30 AM and is dismissed at 1:50 PM. 1st to 3rd grade 78 City of Long Beach. 2013. City of Long Beach General Plan Mobility Element. Available at:

http://www.lbds.info/mobility_element/



August 2017 Page 85

students begin the day at 8:00 AM and are dismissed at 2:05 PM; the 4th and 5th grade begins the day at 8:00 AM and is dismissed at 2:10 PM. The staggered dismissals reduce congestion along nearby roadways during the pick-up period.

A traffic survey was conducted on Thursday June 1, 2017, between 1:15 PM and 3:00 PM. Regional access to the school is provided by 7th Street, from which most vehicles would turn directly onto Silvera Avenue. Westbound vehicles are allowed to U-turn at Margo Avenue in order to make the turn onto Silvera Avenue from 7th Street. It was noted that vehicles also arrived at the school campus via 5th Street and 6th Street. When leaving the site, vehicles could three-point turn in a residential driveway or turn around in the cul-de-sac at 5th Street to return to 7th Street. Most westbound vehicles using 7th Street are assumed to take 5th street to Margo Avenue before turning left back onto 7th Street.

Curbside parking is allowed on both sides of the residential streets including Silvera Avenue (see Figure 5). It was noted that rather than students being dropped off or picked up at a specific site-access point, parents or supervisors park their car in either the parking lot or at curbside parking along Silvera Avenue, 5th Street, and 6th Street, and walk their student to and from the school using the yellow painted crosswalks. Drivers are allowed to park along Silvera Avenue, 5th Street, and 6th Street.

It was noted that prior to student dismissal, vehicles start to line up around 1:30 PM and would remain parked for less than 15 minutes. The majority of vehicles were dispersed by approximately 2:30 PM. Since parents and supervisors are responsible for walking their students to and from the school, there were no crossing guards noted at any of the nearby intersections. No excessive congestion was noted along the parking areas during dismissal, that is, it did not seem like any of the parents or supervisors had difficulty finding a nearby parking spot. The school encourages parents to drive safely and posted guidelines for parents on its website, including instructions not to double park, not to park in red zones or block crosswalks, not to speed, not to make U-turns on Silvera Avenue, and not to block homes driveways.

Approximately 50 parking spaces are provided at the parking lot on the school property with access to 5th Street. It is assumed that most staff members use this area to park, but parents and supervisors are also allowed to use this lot during student dismissal.

Acceptable LOS and Thresholds of Significance

Based on the guidelines used by the City of Long Beach, LOS A through D represent acceptable operating conditions, while LOS E and F represent unacceptable traffic conditions. An impact is considered significant when the resulting LOS with the project traffic is E or F and project-related traffic contributes a V/C of 0.020 or more to the critical movements. The impact at an unsignalized intersection would be deemed significant if the project would result in an increase in traffic delay (seconds per vehicle) of 2 percent or greater at an intersection that is projected to operate at LOS E or F.

Existing Traffic Conditions

The general approach for conducting traffic impact analyses is to evaluate weekday peak-hour traffic during the commuter peak traffic conditions, which generally occurs from 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM to 6:00



Page 86 PlaceWorks

PM. Schools generate most trips during the student drop-off times in the morning and student pick-up times in the midafternoon; student pick-up occurs earlier than the commuter peak hour traffic. Because the peak traffic in the afternoon is earlier than for general traffic in the area, this study focuses on the pick-up period from 1:00 to 3:00 PM. Traffic counts at the intersections of 7th Street at Margo Avenue and 5th Street at Silvera Avenue were obtained on Friday, May 23, 2017, between the hours of 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM, and between 1:00 PM and 3:00 PM.

These two intersections currently operate at acceptable LOS C or better, as shown in Table 15.

Table 15 Existing Traffic Conditions

Intersection Traffic Control

Student Drop-off (AM Peak Hour)

Student Pick-up (Midafternoon)

V/C or Delay LOS V/C or Delay LOS

E 5th St at Silvera Ave All-way stop 8.4 A 7.6 A

E 7th St at Margo Ave Signalized 0.73 C 0.58 A Notes: To determine level of service for signalized intersections, the ICU metric is used in terms of volume per capacity. For unsignalized intersections, delay in seconds

per vehicle is used. LOS worksheets for existing conditions are in Appendix C.

Project-Related Trip Generation

As discussed in Chapter 3, the proposed project consists of the installation and use of interim housing (temporary portable buildings) and expansion of the existing parking lot at Kettering ES. Students in grades 3 to 5 in each of the eight elementary schools would attend classes at the new Kettering ES portable classrooms for about one year while each campus is undergoing modernizations. The temporary portable buildings are required to house students during modernization of eight schools over the next eight years.

School buses would pick up students at their home school at its normal start time and drop them off at the interim housing. At the end of the day (normal dismissal time for the home school) the students would board the bus and be taken back to the home school for pick-up by parents. Some parents would choose to drive children to and from Kettering ES.

Drop-off and pick-up would continue to occur along East 5th Street and Silvera Avenue. However, because of the additional students, more school staff would be posted to ensure students are chaperoned into the school and to assist with moving traffic smoothly. The parking lot would be expanded and reconfigured to include a total of 80 spaces, and the circulation would consist of two parallel driveways with a one-way east-west orientation. In addition, a bus drop-off area would be provided along the northern portion of the lot adjacent to the proposed portables; this area can accommodate up to four buses loading/unloading simultaneously.

The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual would normally be used to determine trip rates for the school in the AM and PM periods. However, the District would be busing the majority of the students from other schools, the ITE elementary school rates do not apply. The numbers of



August 2017 Page 87

private auto trips and bus trips for each school that would be temporarily housed at Kettering ES were calculated based on the student location map for each school, a review of the circulation system, and the distance to drive a student to their home school versus driving them directly to Kettering. Also, these estimates were compared with estimates provided by the District. The student location maps and areas used to calculate the percentage of trip to each home school and to Kettering ES are in Appendix C.

Table 16 presents the trip generation associated with each school in the AM peak hour, PM student dismissal, and daily. The trip generation calculations show the total number of trips that are mostly private automobiles and include up four school buses for each school. As shown in Table 16, the highest volume increases would occur when students of Prisk ES are housed at Kettering ES.

Table 16 Project Trip Generation

Trip Generation Bell Overlap

Trip Generation

Daily1

AM Peak Hour PM Pick Up In Out Total In Out Total

Mann Elementary School No 180 37 23 60 23 23 46

Bixby Elementary School Yes 171 35 22 57 22 22 44

Fremont Elementary School Yes 159 34 19 53 19 19 38

Naples Elementary School Yes 207 41 28 69 28 28 56

Bryant Elementary School No 150 32 18 50 18 18 36

Gant Elementary School Yes 294 57 41 98 41 41 82

Prisk Elementary School No 330 63 47 110 47 47 94

1 Daily trip rates calculated as 3 times the AM peak hour total, based on the ratio of Daily to AM rates for Elementary Schools in the ITE Trip Generation Manual

Prisk ES would result in 330 additional daily vehicle trips, 110 trips in the AM peak hour, and 94 trips in the PM peak hour. The lowest number of trips would occur during housing for Bryant ES, which would result in 150 additional daily vehicle trips, 50 trips in the AM peak hour, and 36 trips in the PM peak hour. The difference in the number of trips for each school occurs because of the number of students that would be housed from each school and because of the location of each school. It should be noted that student drop-off and pick-up at Mann ES, Bryant ES, and Prisk ES would not overlap with Kettering ES—the gap would be one hour. However, for the purpose of this analysis, it was conservatively assumed that for all schools, student drop-off and pick-up would overlap. Therefore, the trips from temporarily housed schools were added to the trips from Kettering ES.

Project Trip Distribution

The project includes the reconfiguration of the loading zones. The campus would be accessed by Silvera Avenue for Kettering ES students. The students from other campuses using the interim housing would be dropped off along 5th Street east of Silvera Avenue and at the reconfigured parking lot. As discussed



Page 88 PlaceWorks

previously, bus loading/unloading would move from the reconfigured bus area in front of the school on Silvera Avenue to inside the parking lot at the south end of the campus.

Based on a review of the existing turning movement volumes, during the AM peak hour 70 percent of inbound trips approach the school via Silvera Avenue from the north and 30 percent via 5th Street from the west. Because left turns are not allowed at the intersection of Silvera Avenue at 7th Street, 70 percent of outbound trips would head to the west via Margo Avenue and 30 percent to the north via Silvera Avenue. The trips from each of the seven schools were based on these travel patterns, with minor adjustments for travel distance from the guest school to Kettering ES (assumes closer school would use personal vehicles more than farther schools).

Traffic Conditions with Interim Housing

Table 17 shows the AM peak hour traffic volumes on the roadway segments adjacent to the school that would experience the greatest increases in traffic. As shown, the existing traffic volumes in the AM peak hour range from 119 to 180. Prisk ES would cause the highest traffic increases. With additional traffic related to temporary housing of Prisk ES, the volumes would range from 162 to 243, an increase of up to 110 vehicles over the existing traffic conditions, but the street network has sufficient capacity to accommodate these volumes. The traffic volumes during the afternoon student dismissal are less than the volumes shown for the AM peak hour below.79

Table 17 AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes at 5th Street and Silvera Avenue

Roadway Segment Existing

Conditions Mann ES Bixby ES Fremont ES Naples ES Bryant ES Gant ES Prisk ES Silvera Avenue north of

5th Street 180 213 213 212 214 207 235 241 Silvera Avenue south of

5th Street 162 162 162 162 172 162 162 162 5th Street east of Silvera

Avenue 133 193 190 186 202 183 231 243 5th Street west of Silvera

Avenue 119 146 143 140 144 142 162 168

Note: Calculation worksheets are included in Appendix C.

Tables 18 and 19 show the projected traffic conditions at the two intersections after the new project trips are added to the study intersections in each scenario. As shown in Table 18, the intersection of 5th Street at Silvera Avenue would continue to operate at acceptable LOS A. The increase in delay would range from 0.3 to 0.9 second per vehicle at this intersection. The average delay per vehicle would increase by a maximum of 0.9 second compared to existing conditions while Prisk ES is moved into the interim housing.

79 The software PTV Vistro Version 5 was used to determine the LOS at the study area intersections.



August 2017 Page 89

Table 18 Traffic Conditions at 5th Street and Silvera Avenue

Scenario

AM Peak Hour PM Pick-up Average Delay per

Vehicle (sec) LOS

Change to Average Delay per Vehicle

(sec)

Average Delay per

Vehicle (sec) LOS

Change to Average Delay per Vehicle

(sec)

Mann Elementary School 8.8 A 0.4 7.9 A 0.3

Bixby Elementary School 8.8 A 0.4 7.9 A 0.3

Fremont Elementary School 8.8 A 0.4 7.9 A 0.3

Naples Elementary School 8.9 A 0.5 8.0 A 0.4

Bryant Elementary School 8.7 A 0.3 7.9 A 0.3

Gant Elementary School 9.2 A 0.8 8.2 A 0.6

Prisk Elementary School 9.3 A 0.9 8.2 A 0.6

Note: Intersection LOS calculation worksheets included in Appendix C.

As shown in Table 19, at the intersection of 7th Street and Margo Avenue, the operation of the intersection degrades from LOS A to LOS B during the PM pick-up period in two scenarios. For the AM peak hour, 7th Street at Margo Avenue already operates at LOS C, and the project would have no significant effect on the operation of that intersection. Though traffic from temporary housing of schools at Kettering ES would bring additional traffic to the local streets in the vicinity of the school, the intersections and roadways in the area have sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic increase with the project and would continue to operate at acceptable LOS ranging from A to C. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Table 19 Traffic Conditions at 7th Street / Margo Avenue Intersection

Scenario AM Peak Hour PM Pick Up

V/C Ratio LOS Change to V/C Ratio V/C Ratio LOS Change to V/C Ratio

Mann Elementary School 0.742 C 0.016 0.600 A 0.02

Bixby Elementary School 0.741 C 0.015 0.599 A 0.019

Fremont Elementary School 0.741 C 0.015 0.598 A 0.018

Naples Elementary School 0.741 C 0.015 0.599 A 0.019

Bryant Elementary School 0.739 C 0.015 0.597 A 0.017

Gant Elementary School 0.751 C 0.025 0.611 B 0.031

Prisk Elementary School 0.753 C 0.027 0.614 B 0.034

Note: Intersection LOS calculation worksheets included in Appendix C.



Page 90 PlaceWorks

Parking

There are currently 50 parking spaces at the southern end of the project, including 3 ADA accessible spaces. The existing parking lot would be expanded and reconfigured to provide 80 parking spaces, including 5 ADA accessible spaces. There would be one ingress driveway at the east end and one egress driveway at the west end; the existing center access driveway would be closed. A bus path would run around the parking lot, separated by a concrete curb barrier, and the bus stop would be just south of the interim housing, with enough space for 4 buses to park and load students. The student drop-off and pick-up area for buses would be located along the curb in the area adjacent to the classroom portables. On-street curbside parking for parents would continue to be provided along 5th Street.

Construction Parking Impacts All construction equipment staging and worker parking would be off-street along the eastern edge of the campus away from classrooms, and would not affect parking at the existing parking lot off 5th Street or curbside parking along the residential streets. The parking lot expansion would take place in summer 2018, which would not cause a shortage in parking for school staff and visitors. There would be adequate parking available during construction of the proposed project, and short-term parking impacts from construction would be less than significant.

Operational Parking Impacts Interim housing would require an increase in parking to account for temporary staff and visitors. The project would reconfigure the campus parking lot. During the 2016 school year, Kettering ES employed 16 teachers and 19 administrative and support staff.80 The number of staff to operate the interim housing would range from 13 to 16. Assuming one vehicle per person, there would be a demand of up to 51 spaces to accommodate staff and administrative support. Therefore, the increase in parking at the school would be able to accommodate the demand for staff and provide parking for visitors. The project would not result in a shortage of parking.

Student Drop-off and Pick-up

Other schools would access the portables from East 5th Street only; they would not walk through the Kettering campus. Kettering ES students would use the front entrance along Silvera Avenue. A fence would separate the schools, making Silvera Avenue the most convenient access to Kettering ES students and 5th Street for interim housing students (see item d below for analysis).

Construction Traffic

The project would involve the installation of portables, utility trenching, restriping of hardcourts. The installation of the interim housing would begin October 2017 and end in December 2017. A total of approximately 25 trucks would be required for delivery of the portables in 2017 and pick-up and removal in 2026. The parking lot expansion would take place in summer 2018. All construction equipment staging and

80 The number of teachers, nurses, and equivalent support staff are from Kettering Elementary School’s website.



August 2017 Page 91

worker parking would be along the eastern edge of the campus away from classrooms. Construction workers typically arrive at construction sites around 7:00 AM, prior to student drop-off hours, and depart after student dismissal hours after 3:00 PM. Therefore there would be minimal overlap between construction-related trips and traffic related to student drop-off and pick-up. Given the relatively small number of truck trips, which would be spread throughout the day, traffic impacts related to construction activities would be less than significant.

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?

Less Than Significant Impact. The Congestion Management Program81 (CMP) was created statewide because of Proposition 111 and is implemented locally by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). The CMP for Los Angeles County requires that the traffic impact of individual development projects of potentially regional significance be analyzed. A specific system of arterial roadways plus all freeways makes up the CMP system. Per CMP Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, a traffic impact analysis is conducted:

At CMP arterial monitoring intersections, including freeway on-ramps or off-ramps, where a project will add 50 or more vehicle trips during either AM or PM weekday peak hours.

At CMP mainline freeway-monitoring locations, where a project will add 150 or more trips, in either direction, during the either the AM or PM weekday peak hours.

The nearest CMP arterial monitoring intersection to the school is the segment of 7th Street and State Route 22, which is located north of the school. The LOS standard is E. The Los Angeles County CMP also utilized the ICU method to evaluate LOS. As discussed in response a) above, the intersections and roadways in the area have sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic increase with the project and would continue to operate at acceptable LOS ranging from A to C. Therefore, CMP intersection impacts would be less than significant.

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

No Impact. The school is not within the immediate vicinity of an airport. The closest public airport is Long Beach Airport at 4100 Donald Douglas Drive in Long Beach, approximately three miles to the northwest. The closest nonpublic landing strip is Los Alamitos Army Airfield, approximately 2.5 miles to the northeast. There is one heliport, the Kilroy AC8- Long Beach Heliport, approximately three miles northwest. No impact to existing air traffic patterns or levels would result from the proposed project.

81 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. 2010. Congestion Management Program. Available at:

https://www.metro.net/projects/congestion_mgmt_pgm/projects_programs_cmp/.



Page 92 PlaceWorks

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

Less than Significant Impact. The traffic levels, pedestrian activity, and vehicular turning movements in the vicinity of the school would increase. The proposed project would not modify the circulation system, except for one access location to the parking lot off 5th Street. The parking lot off 5th Street would be improved with a drop-off and pick-up area for buses and a one-way internal circulation that would separate vehicles and buses. The new drop-off area would accommodate student loading and unloading for the temporary students. Drop-off and pick-up procedures may take a week or so for drivers to learn. The project includes several safety features that would assist in avoiding conflicts between cars and people, as listed below. The proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses

Pavement markings on the parking lot access driveways to indicate the one-directional traffic flow.

Signage placed at the school’s egress driveway to indicate entrance-only and exit-only.

Signage to indicate the bus drop-off and pick-up area and driveway exclusive for bus access.

To promote higher parking turnover during student drop-off and pick-up, approximately 260 feet of the 5th Street north curb would be painted green and signed for temporary parking for 30 minutes from 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM school days, the same as the parking restriction on Silvera Avenue.

At least 10 spaces in the northern portion of the expanded parking lot would be dedicated for 30-minute guest parking during drop-off and pick-up.

A walkway would be constructed from E 5th Street to the interim housing to separate pedestrians from vehicles, allowing students to walk to and from 5th Street without crossing the parking lot and driveways.

Meetings and informational packets would be distributed to instruct parents on the student drop-off and pick-up procedures.

The District facilities staff and Kettering ES principal will review student drop-off and pick-up procedures every month while school is in session to identify bottlenecks and areas for improvement, and shall make adjustments.

The District would implement an incentive program to encourage staff from other schools to carpool.

The District would implement an incentive program to encourage parents of students from other schools to rideshare with other students, and to encourage students to take the bus.



August 2017 Page 93

e) Result in inadequate emergency access?

No Impact. The surrounding roadways would continue to provide emergency access to the school and to surrounding properties during construction. The proposed project would not necessitate any offsite roadway modifications. A new fire lane would be designated along the eastern campus boundary. This area would be kept clear for emergency vehicle ingress and egress by fire trucks, police units, and ambulance/paramedic vehicles. For the interim housing areas, emergency vehicular access would be provided via the new access drive and fire lane. In addition, project design and construction would be required to comply with recommendations from the Long Beach Fire Department for reducing impacts to emergency response or evacuation plans. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access.

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?

Less Than Significant Impact. Because of the proximity of the study area to Cal State Long Beach, it is served by multiple transit lines, including Long Beach Transit bus routes 81 and 173, LA Metro route 577, and Orange County Transportation Authority routes 1, 50, 60, and 560 running east-west on 7th Street. The closest stop is approximately 0.5 mile west of the intersection at 7th Street and Margo Avenue/Campus Road. Modifications to the school campus and temporary housing of students would not require the relocation of bus stops or block sidewalks in the vicinity of the school. There would be temporary construction activity for a period of two months, all construction equipment staging and worker parking would be located within the campus and would not have the potential to interfere with pedestrians during the student arrival and departure times. Impacts to pedestrian and bicycle travel, and to public transit would be less than significant.

5.17 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or

No Impact. Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) requires meaningful consultation with California Native American tribes on potential impacts to tribal cultural resources, as defined in PRC Section 21074. Tribal cultural resources are sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either eligible or listed in the California Register of Historical Resources or local register of historical resources.82

As part of the AB 52 process, Native American tribes must submit a written request to LBUSD (lead agency) to be notified of projects within their traditionally and culturally affiliated area. LBUSD must provide written, 82 California Natural Resources Agency. AB 52 Regulatory Update. http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/.



Page 94 PlaceWorks

formal notification to those tribes within 14 days of deciding to undertake a project. The tribe must respond to LBUSD within 30 days of receiving this notification if they want to engage in consultation on the project, and LBUSD must begin the consultation process within 30 days of receiving the tribe’s request. Consultation concludes when either 1): the parties agree to mitigation measures to avoid a significant effect on a tribal cultural resource, or 2) a party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes mutual agreement cannot be reached.

The school is not listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources. No impacts would occur.

b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less Than Significant Impact. The project would expand the parking lot into an asphalt paved area and place temporary portables on an asphalt pavement. Trenching for utility lines would be required for the portable buildings. To date the District has received three tribal requests to be notified about projects. These requests were received from the following: Gabrieleño Band of the Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, letter dated July 2016; San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, letter dated December 1, 2016; Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, letter dated May 16, 2016. The Long Beach Unified School District notified the Tribes about this project in a letter dated July 3, 2017 and sent via certified mail and email to:

Mr. Andrew Salas, Tribal Chairman, Gabrieleño Band of the Mission Indians – Kizh Nation

Mr. Anthony Morales, Chief, San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians

Mr. Michael Mirelez, Cultural Resource Coordinator, Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians

One request for consultation was received from Gabrieleño Band of the Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The District consulted with the Tribe via phone call on August 16 at 11:00 AM. The District is committed to working with the Tribe before and during earthwork activities. The District has complies with AB 52; impacts would be less than significant.

5.18 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control

Board?

No Impact. The proposed project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The Los Angeles RWQCB sets requirements for waste discharges to municipal storm drains, which would apply to the operation phase of the project. Construction impacts to stormwater are regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board and are discussed above in



August 2017 Page 95

Section 5.9, Hydrology and Water Quality. Impacts related to RWQCB requirements would be less than significant.

b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

No Impact. The Kettering ES campus is connected to municipal water distribution and wastewater collection systems, and water and wastewater lines would be connected to serve the portable buildings. Although the temporary restrooms would increase water demand on campus, the demand would not increase overall demand because the students would be transferred from other schools in the District and within the water district. The project would not induce population growth or increase water treatment demands in the project region. No impact would occur.

The proposed school project would not increase the student population or wastewater generation in the project region. Development of the proposed project would not require construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities, and no impact would occur.

c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not increase the amount of impervious surfaces that could potentially increase stormwater flows at the campus. Drainage from the school campus would continue to flow into existing storm drain systems, with no increase in stormwater runoff. No impact would occur.

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

No Impact. The school currently serves students in the region, and school modernization would not increase the student population or long-term water demands in the project region. Water would be used on-site during construction for dust suppression and similar activities. The small amount of water that would be used for the project construction would not result in the need for new or expanded water entitlements. No impact would occur.

e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

No Impact. Project development would not impact wastewater treatment capacity, as substantiated in (a) and (b) above.



Page 96 PlaceWorks

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

No Impact. The Automated Refuse Collection Division in the Department of Public Works Environmental Service Bureau provides solid waste disposal for the City of Long Beach. Nonhazardous municipal solid waste is disposed of in Class III landfills, while construction waste, yard trimmings, and earth-like waste are disposed of in unclassified (inert) landfills. In 2016, the most recent year for which data are available, 13 Class III landfills and one unclassified landfill with solid waste facility permits accepted waste from the City of Long Beach.83 For the Class III landfills open to the City, the remaining total disposal capacity is approximately 830 million tons.84

Construction of the project would not involve demolition, site grading, and building construction activities. Construction and demolition waste are not expected to be generated. The amount of solid waste generated by the project upon completion would not increase because the student and staff population for LBUSD would not increase. No impact would occur.

g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

No Impact. The school administrators and the District currently comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste and would continue this practice. No impact would occur.

5.19 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially

reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is on an elementary school in an urban setting and surrounded by development. The project site is an asphalt paved parking lot and hardcourts and does not contain any special-status vegetation or animal species. Project development would not degrade the quality of the environment; reduce the population, range, or habitat of a species of fish or wildlife or a rare or endangered plant or animal species; or eliminate an important example of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Impacts to archaeological and paleontological resources would also be less than significant.

83 CalRecycle, Disposal Reporting System (DRS), Jurisdiction Disposal by Facility, Disposal during 2016 for Long Beach.

http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/Reports/Viewer.aspx?P=ReportYear%3d2016%26ReportName%3dReportEDRSJurisDisposalByFacility%26OriginJurisdictionIDs%3d267

84 Based on information from County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works: Los Angeles County Integrated Waste Management Plan 2014 Annual Report, December 2015, and Cal Recycle http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/.



August 2017 Page 97

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)

Less Than Significant Impact. The project consists of temporary student housing and parking lot expansion at Kettering ES. The portable buildings would be removed at the end of modernization at eight schools. This project would not result in cumulative impacts.

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

Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would support the existing students and programs of LBUSD. As demonstrated in this Initial Study, the interim housing and expanded parking lot would not substantially increase environmental effects that would directly or indirectly affect human beings. Impacts would be less than significant.



Page 98 PlaceWorks


August 2017 Page 99

6. List of Preparers 6.1 LEAD AGENCY LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Jacquelyn Roberts, Project Manager, Facilities Development and Planning Branch

6.2 CEQA CONSULTANT PLACEWORKS

Dwayne Mears, AICP, Principal

Alice Houseworth, AICP, LEED AP, Senior Associate

Denise Clendening, PhD, Associate Principal

Michael Watson, PG, Associate Geologist

Fernando Sotelo, PE, PTP, Senior Associate

John Vang, JD, Associate

Cameron Sullivan, Project Engineer, Noise, Vibration & Acoustics

Tammie Kuo, Traffic Intern

Cary Nakama, Graphic Artist


6. List of Preparers

Page 100 PlaceWorks


INTERIM HOUSING AT CHARLES F. KETTERING ELEMENTARY...

Documents

Transcript of INTERIM HOUSING AT CHARLES F. KETTERING ELEMENTARY...