Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District Santa Monica ... · Santa Monica High School Science...

Santa Monica High School Science and Technology Building and Site Improvements SMMUSD Initial Study

Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District

Santa Monica High School Science and Technology Building and Site Improvements Project

CEQA Initial Study

1. Project Title: Santa Monica High School Science and Technology Building and Site Improvements

2. Lead Agency: Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School

District 1651 Sixteenth Street Santa Monica, CA 90404

3. Contact Person: Janece L. Maez, Assistant Superintendant, Business and Fiscal Services Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School

District 1651 Sixteenth Street

Santa Monica, CA 90404 Email: [email protected]

4. Project Location: 601 Pico Boulevard Santa Monica, CA 90405 5. General Plan Designation: Residential 6. Zoning: Medium Density Multiple Family

Residential; Public Lands Overlay District 7. Description of Project:

The Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD) is proposing to reconfigure an approximately 5.2-acre northern portion of the existing Santa Monica High School campus. The proposed “Project" would consist of the removal of the existing 88,000-square-foot Science and Technology Buildings, parking lot, and softball field and construction of a new 84,000-square-foot Science and Technology Building, 253-space parking lot, and softball field in a reconfigured site layout. Campus-wide updates to the fire alarm and electrical systems would also be conducted, and dependent on funding, installation of synthetic turf at the existing


football field, improvements to the south gymnasium ceiling, and ventilation improvements to the gymnasium and swimming pool locker rooms. Land Uses and Setting The Project site is located at 601 Pico Boulevard in the City of Santa Monica in the County of Los Angeles and is located generally south of the intersection of Olympic Boulevard and Lincoln Boulevard, approximately 100 feet south of Interstate 10 (I-10, Santa Monica Freeway), which becomes State Route 1 (SR-1, Pacific Coast Highway) approximately 800 feet southwesterly of the Project site, and Interstate 405 (I-405, San Diego Freeway) approximately 3.5 miles to the northeasterly direction. The Pacific Ocean is located approximately one-half mile to the west of the Project site. Figure 1 shows the regional location of the study area. The Project would occur on the existing 26-acre Santa Monica High School campus. The Project site occupies approximately 5.2 acres bordered by Olympic Boulevard along the northerly boundary, 6th Street along the westerly boundary, the remainder of the Santa Monica High School campus along the southerly boundary, and commercial and residential parcels along the easterly boundary, which separate the Project site from Lincoln Boulevard. The reconfiguration would occur on the northeastern portion of the campus with additional infrastructure improvements occurring throughout the entire campus. Figure 2 shows the existing campus facilities. Project Background In 2006, Santa Monica and Malibu voters passed Measure BB, a $268-million bond to construct and renovate schools within the SMMUSD. The SMMUSD requires all of its schools to improve health, safety, and class instruction. The proposed Project has been designed to adhere to these goals and requirements. The main objectives of the proposed Project are to:

• Eliminate asbestos, lead and other hazardous substances from the existing Science and Technology Buildings;

• Provide modernized science and technical classrooms;

• Establish a public “front door” at the Michigan Avenue entrance to campus;

• Develop open spaces that would unify and enhance the northern portion of

the campus;

• Provide a formal, secure edge to the perimeter of campus and a physical and visual barrier to the adjacent I-10 Freeway and gas station;

Al

Los Angeles

Orange County

Figure 1Regional Location Map

Source: California Geospatial Information Library (2003-5)

P a c i f i cO c e a n

Project LocationLos Angeles County

Long Beach

Glendale

Pasadena

Irvine

SantaAna

Malibu

San Fernando

Lancaster

Palmdale

0 8 164Miles

WestHollywood

SantaMonica

El SegundoVentura County

Kern County

ytnu

oC

onid

ranr

eB

naS

Los Angeles Countyyt

nuo

C se

legn

A so

L

10

60

101

110

710

605

405

5

210

210

2170

110

39

14

2

5

10

405

22

55

57

5

118

23

138

5

126

405

1

1

101

N1 inch equals 8 miles

0 300 600150feet

1 inch equals 300 feet

N

Source: R.L. Binder Architects 2009

Figure 2Existing Site Features


• Improve vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian access to campus;

• Reconfigure the existing 253-space parking lot;

• Create a sustainable and maintainable building; and

• Provide existing campus classrooms with limited infrastructure upgrades in preparation for future District Standard technology upgrades.

Project Design Details The existing Science and Technology Buildings currently occupy the southern corner of the Project site with the existing softball field located in the eastern corner and the existing parking lot on the northerly and westerly corners. The proposed Project would reconfigure the layout of the Project site and place the new Science and Technology Building in the northern and eastern portion of the Project site. The softball field would be relocated to the southwesterly corner of the Project site, while the proposed L-shaped parking lot would be located in between the new building and softball field, extending westerly along Olympic Boulevard. The new Science and Technology Building would be designed to enhance the Michigan Avenue pedestrian entrance to the campus and create a formal perimeter along the 7th Court Alley, and Olympic Boulevard. Currently, vehicles access the campus via Michigan Avenue from Lincoln Boulevard and 6th Street from Olympic Boulevard. Vehicles currently enter the Project site via the 7th Court Alley that separates the Project site from the commercial parcel located south of the intersection of Olympic Boulevard and Lincoln Boulevard. Access to the 7th Court Alley is currently via Olympic Boulevard or Michigan Avenue. Vehicles along Olympic Boulevard also currently use 6th Street as a drop-off and pick-up location for the entire campus. The proposed Project would re-route all access to the Project site via a ramp off of 6th Street access road to the proposed new parking lot. A drop-off and pick-up lane would be created along Olympic Boulevard just west of its intersection with Lincoln Boulevard. Access to 7th Court Alley would be retained and would continue to serve the commercial parcels adjacent to the easterly boundary of the Project site. The 7th Court Alley would also be used for vehicle access to the school’s auto shop, which would be located in the northeasterly corner of the proposed Science and Technology Building. Additional Project components include campus-wide updates to the fire alarm and electrical systems. Depending on funding, additional components would potentially include installation of synthetic turf at the existing football field, improvements to the south gymnasium ceiling, and ventilation improvements to the gymnasium and swimming pool locker rooms. Components of the proposed Project are shown on Figure 3 and a rendering of the proposed Science and Technology Building, softball field and parking lot is shown in Figure 4.

R. L. Binder, FAIA Architecture & Planning, March 2008

Figure 3Santa Monica High School Science and Technology Building and Site Improvements

Not to ScaleN

SANTA MONICA HIGH SCHOOL - MEASURE BB SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BUILDING AND SITE IMPROVEMENTSSANTA MONICA MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

R L B I N D E R F A I A A R C H I T E C T U R E & P L A N N I N G - P L AYA D E L R E Y C A L I F O R N I A

100% SCHEMATIC DESIGN - NOVEMBER 20, 2008

R. L. Binder, FAIA Architecture & Planning, November 2008

Figure 4Santa Monica High School Science and Technology Building Rendering


Additional Features of the Project A major design component of the proposed Project is sustainability and maintainability. The SMMUSD has enacted a District-wide Resolution No. 07-07 on Green Building Design and Construction that establishes the following sustainable design approach:

• Student performance and staff health and well being, through measures such as daylighting, the use of non-toxic materials, and the utilization of strategies to enhance the acoustical quality of each classroom;

• Operating cost minimization through: (a) energy efficiency in buildings and equipment beyond that required by the California Energy Performance Standards (Title 24); (b) the purchase of Energy Star rated equipment; (c) the use of renewable energy resources such as solar and wind power; and (d) water efficiency through the utilization of native and other drought tolerant (“California friendly”) plants, efficient irrigation systems and water conserving interior fixtures beyond those required by code; and

• Ensuring that Bond Measure BB Projects minimize the District’s long-term

impact on the environment through reducing carbon emissions, ensuring the cleanliness of stormwater runoff, storing and reusing stormwater where feasible, and recycling demolition and construction waste.

Accordingly, the design of the proposed Project has been tailored to meet the District’s sustainability goals including:

• Collection of stormwater runoff in infiltration devices for groundwater recharge;

• Development of a landscape plan to minimize water use and urban heat island effect through shade and reflective landscape materials;

• Inclusion of permeable surfaces, including porous asphalt, paver blocks or

large aggregate concrete, and trees with a high, dense canopy;

• Configuration of buildings to reduce footprint and take advantage of natural ventilation; and

• Use of reflective roofs, shading devices, renewable recycled building

materials, and drip irrigation and low flow water features.

Construction is anticipated to start approximately in October/November 2010 and take 30 months to complete, ending in approximately November 2012. The existing Science and Technology Buildings would continue to operate during construction of


the new building. Approximately 20 landscape trees may potentially be removed; however, the proposed Project includes a landscape plan which would include the planting of additional trees and shrubs throughout the Project site.1 The replacement trees would exceed the number of trees removed.2 During construction of the new building, softball activities would be temporarily relocated to Memorial Park, located approximately 0.6-mile to the northeast across the I-10 Freeway or to John Adams Middle School located approximately 0.9-mile in the easterly direction. The existing parking lot provides approximately 253 parking spaces: 183 assigned to faculty and staff, 40 spaces assigned to students during a twice-yearly lottery, and 2 spaces for handicapped parking. The new parking lot would accommodate the same 253 spaces. The existing parking lot would be removed during construction of the new building. Faculty and staff currently assigned to the spaces would be accommodated though offsite parking in the Civic Center; however, all student spaces would be temporarily lost during construction. Student parking would continue to be available in neighborhood parking garages. Following construction of the new building, the existing buildings would be removed and replaced with the new softball field and parking lot reconfiguration. Compliance with Regulations and Policies The proposed Project would be required to adhere to applicable regulations and guidelines regarding construction and operation. In addition to compliance with the California Department of Education’s requirements for site design and function, these regulations and guidelines include the following: Laboratories within the new Science and Technology Building shall be equipped with proper venting equipment and operation of the proposed Project shall comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 402. Construction shall comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to ensure that nesting bird surveys shall be conducted prior to the start of construction activities which would occur during nesting bird season (February 1 through August 31). Per the Migratory Bird Treaty Act requirements, a qualified biologist shall conduct a nest survey within one week of the start of construction to ensure that no active nests are present. If an active nest is located, then the nest shall be flagged and construction within 300 feet (500 feet for raptors) of the nest shall be postponed until the biologist has confirmed that the nest is no longer active. The proposed Project shall comply with the City of Santa Monica tree protection ordinance, which requires that any tree, shrub or plant in any street, park, boulevard, or public place in the City must be protected against damage during the repair, alteration, or construction of a building. Accordingly, no trees in public places, including adjacent sidewalks, shall be removed or damaged as a result of the

1 Cy Carlberg, Registered Consulting Arborist. Santa Monica High School – Tree Report. April 2009. 2 Ibid.


proposed Project. However, approximately 20 landscape trees may be removed within the Project site, which is not considered to be a public place. During all earth-moving activities associated with construction of the proposed Project, a qualified archaeologist shall be onsite to monitor the ground disturbance for archaeological artifacts. In accordance with the provisions of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15064.5, should artifacts be uncovered, construction activities shall be halted until such time as the archaeologist has cleared the site. Unidentified artifacts shall be preserved and identified in consultation with an appropriate jurisdictional agency. Should construction activities uncover human remains during earth moving activities, the SMMUSD would be required to implement the process specified by Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, and all construction activities shall be halted until such time as the Los Angeles County Coroner has been able to clear the site. All new structures shall be subject to State building and safety guidelines, restrictions, and permit regulations, including the Uniform Building Code and the California Department of Conservation, Divisions of Mines and Geology requirements, which are designed to address the risks associated with seismic groundshaking. The design of the proposed Science and Technology Building would comply with the Field Act, which requires high standards of safety for school buildings through adherence to strict standards based on the California Building Code. As part of the proposed Project’s compliance with the Field Act, the design of the building would be reviewed and approved by the Division of the State Architect. Since the proposed Project is greater than one acre in size, the SMMUSD’s construction contractor shall prepare and comply with a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which would feature erosion control measures. In addition, the SMMUSD’s construction contractor shall comply with the Stormwater Construction Activities General Permit and obtain a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The proposed Project shall be designed and constructed pursuant to Title 24 of the California Building Standards Code, and other design guidelines established by the site-specific Geotechnical Investigation Report (see Appendix D). Due to the age of on-site structures, there is the potential for asbestos-containing material (ACM) and lead-based paint (LBP). A preconstruction survey would be required to determine the presence of ACM and LBP. All ACM and LBP would be removed prior to the start of demolition in accordance with SCAQMD’s practices for ACM (Rule 1403).3

3 SCAQMD. Rule 1403 - Asbestos Emissions From Demolition/Renovation Activities. website http://www.arb.ca. gov/ DRDB/SC/CURHTML/R1403.HTM.


8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

The area surrounding the Santa Monica High School campus consists of commercial and residential neighborhoods to the easterly and southerly directions, the Civic Center to the southwesterly direction, and the I-10 Freeway to the northerly direction. The commercial and residential neighborhoods consist of structures from various eras and styles. The DoubleTree Guest Suites Hotel is located to the southwest and the Sheraton Delfina Hotel is located to the southeast. The Civic Center Auditorium directly across 4th Street was constructed in 1958. In addition the Viceroy Hotel, County Courthouse, RAND building, and the new City Parking Structure can be viewed from the campus.

9. Required Approvals: Various permits and approvals would be required in order to approve and implement

the proposed Project. These include the following:

• Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (certification of the EIR and Project approval)

• State Fire Marshall (approval of code analysis) • Division of the State Architect (approval of construction drawings and

accessibility) • Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 4 (National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System permit, issuance of waste discharge requirement, construction stormwater runoff permits)

• Utility providers (i.e. utility connection permits) • City of Santa Monica (Infrastructure and Santa Monica Fire Department Review) • City of Santa Monica Planning Department Review • City of Santa Monica Grading Permit


This page is left intentionally blank.


ORGANIZATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Sections 4A through 4Q provide a discussion of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project. The evaluation of environmental impacts follows the questions provided in the Checklist provided in the CEQA Guidelines4 and annotated to meet requirements of Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations for school facilities. TERMINOLOGY USED IN THIS ANALYSIS For each question listed in the IS checklist, a determination of the level of significance of the impact is provided. Impacts are categorized in the following categories:

• A designation of no impact is given when no adverse changes in the environment are expected.

• A less than significant impact would cause no and involve no substantial

adverse change in the environment that exceeds significance thresholds. Components of the Project, or programs or procedures that are part of the Project, are considerations in making this determination. Such components are not considered mitigation measures because they are part of this Project.

• A potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated impact would have a

substantial adverse impact on the environment but could be reduced to a less than significant level with incorporation of mitigation measure(s).

• A significant and unavoidable impact would cause a substantial adverse

effect on the environment, and no feasible mitigation measures would be available to reduce the impact to a less than significant level.

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on Project-specific factors, as well as general standards (e.g., the Project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a Project-specific screening analysis). All answers must take consider the whole action involved for both short-term construction and long-term operation activities, including activities which would occur off-site, and activities which would result in indirect or direct impacts.

4 CEQA Guidelines, CCR, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, §15000, Appendix G., 2008.


References and citations have been incorporated into the checklist references to identify information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). The explanation of each issue identifies:

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.


A. AESTHETICS. Would the Project:

Potentially Significant

Impact

Less Than Significant with

Mitigation Incorporation

Less Than Significant

Impact No

Impact

a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

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

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

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

e. Create a new source of substantial shade or shadow that would adversely affect daytime views in the area?

Explanation: a. Less Than Significant Impact. Scenic vistas are typically categorized as

either panoramic views (visual access to a large geographic area) or focal views (visual access to a particular object, scene, setting, or feature of interest). Typical scenic vistas in Santa Monica offer views to the coastline and Pacific Ocean or to the Santa Monica Mountains. Although the Project site offers views to the Pacific Ocean and the proposed Project would construct a taller building than currently exists in a new location onsite, no public or protected view corridors to these scenic resources exist in the vicinity of the Project site. Accordingly, impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant and no further study of this issue is required.

b. No Impact. Implementation of the proposed Project would not damage any

scenic resources. The Project site includes existing science and technology buildings, a softball field, and a 253-space parking lot. There are no official State scenic highways within the City boundaries.5 State Route 1 (Pacific Coast Highway) is an eligible state scenic highway, although it is not officially designated as such. The City of Santa Monica has identified six scenic corridors, including: 1) Santa Monica Freeway within the Coastal Zone; 2) Ocean Avenue from the north Coastal Zone boundary to Barnard Way; 3) Pacific Coast Highway (Route 1) within the City limits; 4) Barnard Way from

5 Caltrans, State Scenic Highway Program, website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways /index.htm, accessed February 9, 2009.


Ocean Avenue to south City boundary; 5) Wilshire Boulevard from the Coastal Zone boundary to Ocean Avenue; and 6) Santa Monica Mall. The proposed Project site is not located within or visible from any of the City’s scenic corridors. The proposed Project may remove approximately 20 landscape trees from the Project site, which is not located within a scenic highway. In addition, the proposed Project includes a landscape plan and the number of replacement trees would exceed the number of trees removed.6 Accordingly, no impacts to any scenic resources or scenic resources within a scenic highway would occur and no further evaluation of this issue is required.

c. Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed Project would reconfigure a

portion of the Santa Monica High School campus with the same facilities that currently exist. The existing Science and Technology Buildings are two stories in height. Although the proposed new Science and Technology Building would be one-story taller than the existing buildings, the visual character and quality of the Project site would not be expected to be degraded as a result of the proposed Project. In addition, the Project design, including visual appearance, would be reviewed and approved by the City, and the Project would include a landscape plan, which would be expected to enhance the visual character of the Project site. However, the proposed Project would be constructed on the southwest side of 7th Court Alley, across from residential uses located on the northeast side of 7th Court Alley. Residential uses are also located across from the Project site on the east side of Michigan Avenue. A change in the visual character of the Project site compared to the visual character of the existing residential uses may potentially result. Therefore, potential impacts related to visual character will be further evaluated in the EIR.

d. Potentially Significant Impact. The exterior finish of the new Science and

Technology Building would not include any highly reflective surfaces aside from the standard glass windows. The Project site is currently developed with the existing Science and Technology Buildings, which contains general nighttime building lighting, security lighting, and landscape lighting. The proposed new Science and Technology Building would contain similar building, security, and landscape lighting as currently exists on the Project site. The proposed Project would not include new sources of light or glare; however, the Project would relocate existing sources of light closer to residential uses across Michigan Avenue to the east and across 7th Alley Court to the northeast. As such, potential impacts to adjacent sensitive receptors will be further evaluated in the EIR.

e. Potentially Significant Impact. Shadow effects are dependent on several

factors including the local topography, the height of the structure, sensitivity of adjacent land uses, season, and duration of the shadow. The proposed

6 Cy Carlberg, Registered Consulting Arborist. Santa Monica High School – Tree Report. April 2009.


Project would replace the existing two-story Science and Technology Buildings with a three-story building. The proposed Project would be constructed on the southwest side of 7th Court Alley, across from the residential uses located on the northeast side of 7th Court Alley. Residential uses are also located across from the Project site on the east side of Michigan Avenue. The proposed Project may potentially cast shadows on these nearby residential uses. Thus, a shade and shadow analysis will be conducted as part of the EIR.

Further Study Required: Further study is required to determine the potential impacts to nearby sensitive receptors associated with changes to visual character, lighting, and shadows.


B. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the

Project (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):


Impact




Impact No

Impact

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?

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

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

Explanation: a. No Impact. The proposed Project would not convert farmland to non-

agricultural uses. The Project site is located within an area designated as Urban and Built-Up Land by the California Division of Land Resource Protection Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.7 The Project site is currently zoned Medium Density Multiple Family Residential (R3) with the Public Lands Overlay District and developed with school facilities. Therefore, no impact to Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance would occur. No further study of this issue is required.

b. No Impact. The proposed Project would not conflict with agricultural zoning

or a Williamson Act contract. The Project site is in an urban setting and is currently used as a school. The Project site is currently zoned R3 Medium Density Multiple Family Residential.8 No impact on agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contracts would occur, and no further study of this issue is required.

c. No Impact. Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in

changes to the environment that would convert farmland to non-agricultural

7 California Division of Land Resource Protection Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. website

http://www.consrv.ca.gov/DLRP/fmmp/overview/survey_area_map.htm. 8 City of Santa Monica. Online Property Information System. website http://gismap.santamonica.org

/imf/imf.jsp?site=property, accessed February 5, 2009.


uses. The Project site is presently zoned R3 Medium Density Multiple Family Residential and developed with school facilities.9 The Project site is in an urban setting with no farmland within several miles.10 Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses, and no further study of this issue is required.

Further Study Required: No further study of agricultural resources is required.

9 Ibid. 10 California Division of Land Resource Protection Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. website

http://www.consrv.ca.gov/DLRP/fmmp/overview/survey_area_map.htm.


C. 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:


Impact




Impact No

Impact

a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan?

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

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 that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

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

Explanation: a. Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is located within the South

Coast Air Basin (Basin), which is bounded by the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east, and the Pacific Ocean to the south and west. The air quality in the Basin is managed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The Basin has a history of recorded air quality violations and is an area where both state and federal ambient air quality standards are exceeded. Because of the violations of the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), the California Clean Air Act requires triennial preparation of an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The AQMP analyzes air quality on a regional level and identifies region-wide attenuation methods to achieve the air quality standards, including: regulations for stationary-source polluters; facilitation of new transportation technologies, such as low-emission vehicles; and capital improvements, such as park-and-ride facilities and public transit improvements. The most recently adopted plan is the 2007 AQMP, adopted on June 11, 2007. This plan is the SCAQMD’s portion of the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SCAQMD accepts that southern California is growing. As such, the AQMP accommodates population growth and transportation projections based on the forecasts made by the Southern


California Association of Governments (SCAG). A project is considered inconsistent with air quality plans if it results in population and/or employment growth that exceeds growth estimates in the applicable air quality plan. The proposed Project does not include any residential development, housing, or large local or regional employment centers. Also, no new academic programs are proposed. Construction and operation of the proposed Project would not result in population or employment growth. The proposed Project is intended to reconfigure the existing parking lot, access ramp to the parking lot, and softball field and construct a new Science and Technology Building. Additional features of the proposed Project may include repairs to the south gym ceiling, installation of synthetic turf on the football field, and improvements to the ventilation of the existing swimming pool and gymnasium locker rooms. Accordingly, the Project would not affect school enrollment or create new vehicle trips. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to the implementation of the SCAQMD’s AQMP, and no further study of this issue is required.

b. Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed Project may potentially violate

air quality standards or contribute to existing or projected air quality violations. The proposed Project would generate air pollutants as a result of construction emissions. Short-term impacts may result from construction equipment emissions, such as graders, dump trucks, worker vehicle exhaust, and from fugitive dust during excavation and site preparation activities. Long-term air quality impacts from operation-related activities would not occur as the Project would not affect school enrollment or create new vehicle trips. Additionally, it would be expected that greenhouse gas emissions associated with operation of the proposed building and the existing buildings throughout the campus would decrease as a result of the facility improvements and sustainability of the Science and Technology Building design. However, a detailed air quality study will be prepared, and air quality impacts, including those from greenhouse gases, will be further evaluated in the EIR.

c. Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed Project may result in a

cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutant for which the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is in non-attainment. The SCAB is in non-attainment for ozone (O3), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) and carbon monoxide (CO).11 The SCAQMD determines cumulative impacts based on whether an individual Project will exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance for operational or construction impacts. Construction of the proposed Project may contribute to air quality impacts in the existing non-attainment area and compound the issue. A detailed air quality study will be prepared, and cumulative impacts will be further evaluated in the EIR.

d. Potentially Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors are populations that are

more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the population at large. 11 SCAQMD. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. November 1993. p. 6.


The SCAQMD identifies the following as sensitive receptors: long-term health facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, retirement homes, residences, schools, playgrounds, child care centers, and athletic facilities. The Project site is currently a high school. The Project proposes to reconfigure the northern portion of the campus with the demolition of the current Science and Technology Buildings and construction of a new combined Science and Technology Building. The SMHS campus is surrounded by multi-family residential uses; therefore, sensitive receptors could be affected by Project construction. This issue will be examined as part of the EIR.

Carbon monoxide (CO) hot spots, or areas of high concentration, can occur at congested roadway intersections as a result of accumulating vehicle CO emissions. A significant air quality impact would occur if sensitive receptors are exposed to CO levels that exceed state or federal standards. Although no new operational trips would be generated, the proposed Project would reconfigure access to the Project site. Additionally, the new Science and Technology Building would be slightly closer to the I-10 Freeway. An air quality analysis will be prepared to determine the potential air quality impacts from the relocation.

e. Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed Project has the potential to result in adverse objectionable odors. Emissions from construction equipment, architectural coatings, and paving activities may generate objectionable odors; however, these odors would be temporary in nature and would not affect a substantial number of people. As described above, laboratories within the new Science and Technology Building would be equipped with proper venting equipment and operation of the proposed Project would comply with SCAQMD Rule 402.12 However, potential odor impacts may result from the release of gases from the vent outlets. Accordingly, impacts related to objectionable odors will be further analyzed in the EIR.

Further Study Required: Further study is required for air emissions related to short-term construction and long-term operations. Construction of the school reconfiguration could contribute to air quality impacts in an existing non-attainment area for O3, PM10, PM2.5, and CO; and there may be potential pollutant and odor impacts to sensitive receptors.

12 SCAQMD. Rule 402 – Nuisance. Adopted May 7, 1976.


D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the Project:


Impact




Impact No

Impact

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 Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?

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

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

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

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

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

Explanation: a. No Impact. Implementation of the proposed Project would not impact, either

directly or indirectly or through habitat modifications, any endangered threatened or rare species as listed in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.13 Sensitive plant species are those that are candidates, proposed, or listed as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

13 CCR, Title 14, Section 670.2 or 670.5; Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 50, § 17.11 or 17.12. 2006.


Service (USFWS) or the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and those plants that are considered sensitive species by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS). The Project site is currently developed and located in an urban setting that does not contain any habitat of candidate, sensitive or special status species as listed in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFG or USFWS. A search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) using Rarefind 314 for the Beverly Hills U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle was performed to develop a preliminary list of sensitive species and biological resources that could potentially occur within the Project vicinity. Based on the CNDDB search conducted for the Project site and site visit, there is no potential for the presence of special-status species at the Project site.15 Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not have the potential to directly or indirectly affect any endangered, threatened or rare species. No impact would result, and no further study is required.

b. No Impact. The proposed Project would not have an effect on any riparian

habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by CDFG or USFWS. The Project site is currently developed and located in an urban residential setting; it does not contain any riparian habitat or other natural habitat as designated by the CDFG and USFWS. Therefore, no impacts to riparian or other natural habitat would occur, and no further study of this issue is required.

c. No Impact. The proposed Project would not have an 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. The Project site is currently developed and located in an urban setting; it does not contain any wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.16 The nearest estuarine and marine wetland to the Project site is located approximately one-half mile to the west in the Pacific Ocean.17 No impact would occur, and no further study of this issue is required.

d. Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed Project

would not interfere 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. The Project site is an existing school, located in an urban residential environment. The Project site does not contain any watercourse, greenbelt, or open space for wildlife movement, as it is an existing school, which does not provide appropriate habitat for plants or wildlife. The proposed Project may remove

14 CDFG, CNDDB GIS Data Compact Disc, Sacramento, California, 2005. 15 Ibid. 16 USFWS. National Wetland Inventory, Wetlands Online Mapper. website http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/

Data/mapper.html, accessed February 5, 2009. 17 Ibid.


approximately 20 landscape trees from the Project site.18 However, no sensitive tree species would be removed as part of the proposed Project and construction would comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to ensure that nesting bird surveys would be conducted prior to the start of construction activities which would occur during nesting bird season (February 1 through August 31). Per the Migratory Bird Treaty Act requirements, a qualified biologist would conduct a nest survey within one week of the start of construction to ensure that no active nests would be lost. If an active nest is located, then the nest should be flagged and construction within 300 feet (500 feet for raptors) of the nest should be postponed until the biologist has confirmed that the nest is no longer active. The proposed Project would also comply with the City of Santa Monica tree protection ordinance, which requires that any tree, shrub or plant in any street, park, boulevard, or public place in the City must be protected against damage during the repair, alteration, or construction of a building. Although approximately 20 trees may be removed from the Project site, the Project site is not considered to be a public place. Accordingly, no trees in public places, including adjacent sidewalks, would be removed or damaged as a result of the proposed Project. Compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and City Municipal Code requirements would ensure a less than significant impact to migratory wildlife species. No further study of this issue is required.

e. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project may remove

approximately 20 landscape trees on the Project site. However, as discussed in Response D above, none of these trees qualify for protection under the City’s tree protection ordinance. Further, new site landscaping would be provided as part of the proposed Project, which would provide more trees than were removed. Compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) would ensure that the proposed Project does not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Impacts would be less than significant and no further study of this issue is required

f. No Impact. No Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation

Plan, or other approved habitat conservation plan has been adopted to include the Project site. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. No impacts would occur, and no further study of this issue is required.

Further Study Required: No further study of biological resources is required.

18 Cy Carlberg, Registered Consulting Arborist. Santa Monica High School – Tree Report. April 2009.


E. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the Project:


Impact




Impact No

Impact

a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?

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

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

d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

Explanation: a. Potentially Significant Impact. The SMMUSD defines a historical resource

as: (1) a resource listed in the California Register of Historical Resources; (2) a resource determined by the State Historical Resources Commission to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources; (3) a resource designated in a local register of historical resources pursuant to a local government ordinance or resolution; (4) a resource recognized as historically significant by local government ordinance or resolution; or (5) a resource identified as significant in a local government historical resource survey that meets the requirements of Public Resources Code section 5024.1(g). The proposed Project site is within the existing Santa Monica High School campus, which was constructed in 1912 with additions completed in 1960. Currently, no buildings or structures on the Santa Monica High School campus are listed or have been determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. Barnum Hall, constructed in 1938 and located in the central portion of the campus, was designated as City Landmark No. 47 in 2002.19 In 1993, the City of Santa Monica identified the amphitheater on the southern portion of the campus, which was constructed in 1921, as potentially contributing to the potential Santa Monica Public Schools Thematic District in the City’s Historic Resources Inventory.20 Further, the potential Santa Monica Public Schools Thematic District does not appear on the City’s list of Designated Historic Districts.21 In addition, no City Structures of Merit are located on the campus.22 Rather, the proposed Project

19 City of Santa Monica. Designated City Landmarks. June 2008. Website http://www01.smgov.net/planning/

planningcomm/designatedlandmarks.html. Accessed May 27, 2009. 20 City of Santa Monica. Historic Resources Inventory, California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR)

523 Form for Potential Thematic District (Santa Monica Public Schools).1993. 21 City of Santa Monica. Designated Historic Districts. December 2006. Website

http://www01.smgov.net/planning/ planningcomm/designatedlandmarks.html. Accessed May 27, 2009. 22 City of Santa Monica. Designated Landmarks, Historic Districts, and Structures of Merit Map. October 2006.

Website http://www01.smgov.net/planning/planningcomm/designatedlandmarks.html. Accessed May 27, 2009.


would replace the existing Science and Technology Buildings, 253-space parking lot, and softball field and would not directly alter Barnum Hall. The City is currently in the process of updating its Historic Resources Inventory.23 If the City’s Historic Resources Inventory update is complete prior to the certification of the Final EIR for the proposed Project, the District will evaluate the updated inventory and incorporate, if applicable, into the EIR. Accordingly, further consultation with the City of Santa Monica and analysis are required to determine whether additional presumptive historical resources are present on the campus, and if so, the impacts to these resources.

b. Less Than Significant Impact. Although the proposed Project site is

currently fully developed with the Science and Technology Buildings, surface parking lot, and softball field, the proposed Project would involve ground disturbing activities associated with construction of the reconfiguration Project. Past construction on the campus has not encountered any archaeological resources and construction activities would occur entirely within previously developed areas. Although remote, it is possible that archaeological resources may be uncovered during ground disturbing activities. Accordingly, as discussed in the Project features above, an onsite archaeological monitor would observe all ground-disturbing activities to ensure that any archaeological resources potentially uncovered by construction of the proposed Project would be properly preserved and identified in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. As such, the impacts of the proposed Project on these potentially occurring resources would be less than significant and no further study of this issue area is required.

c. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project site is currently fully

developed with the Science and Technology Buildings, surface parking lot, and softball field. Although the proposed Project would involve ground disturbing activities, construction would not involved extensive excavation to great depths. The Project area is located on older alluvial deposits which are not known to be fossil-bearing.24 Accordingly, it is unlikely that significant paleontological resources would be uncovered during ground disturbing activities. As such, impacts would be less than significant and no further study of this issue is required.

d. Less Than Significant Impact. No religious or sacred uses, including

sacred burial grounds, have been identified on the Project site. No human remains are known to exist on the Project site, and the Project site is not designated nor has it been designated for use as a cemetery. Though it is unlikely, it is possible that construction activity could unearth previously unknown human remains. If this were to occur during construction, the SMMUSD would be required to implement the process specified by Section

23 City of Santa Monica. Roxanne Tanemori, Senior Planner. Email correspondence May 2009. 24 US Geological Survey. Preliminary Geologic Map of the Los Angeles 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, Southern

California. 2005.


7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code.25 The Los Angeles County Coroner would be notified, and no further disturbance would occur in the immediate area where the remains are located until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition. With implementation of this required process, any unforeseen impacts would be less than significant, and no further study of this issue is required.

Further Study Required: Further consultation with the City of Santa Monica and analysis are required to determine whether additional presumptive historical resources are present on the campus, and if so, the impacts to these resources.

25 California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, 2006.


F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the Project:


Impact




Impact No

Impact

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.

ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?

iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

iv. Landslides?

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

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

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

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?

Explanation: a.(i) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not expose

people or structures to potential adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault. The Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone and no known faults cross the Project site.26 There are no known active or potentially active faults

26 MACTEC. Report of Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Science and Technology Building. December 22,

2008. See Appendix D of this Initial Study.


with the potential for surface fault rupture located directly beneath or projecting toward the Project site, and the potential for surface rupture at the Project site is considered low.27 Therefore, risks from the rupture of a known earthquake fault are less than significant, and no further study of this issue is required.

a.(ii) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not expose

people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking. The nearest known fault is the Santa Monica Fault, located approximately 1.93 miles north of the Project site.28 The Santa Monica Fault is considered to be active, and the Project site would be subject to strong seismic groundshaking in the event of an earthquake. Seismic hazards from groundshaking are typical for many areas of Southern California and the potential for seismic activity would not be greater than for much of the Los Angeles area. The design of the proposed building would be reviewed and approved by the Division of the State Architect, in accordance with the policies of the Field Act. Additionally, all new structures would be subject to State building and safety guidelines, restrictions, and permit regulations, including the Uniform Building Code and the California Department of Conservation, Divisions of Mines and Geology requirements, which are designed to address the risks associated with seismic groundshaking. No further study of this issue is required.

a.(iii) No Impact. The proposed Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. The proposed Project area is not located within an area determined to be susceptible to seismic slope instability, including liquefaction.29 Additionally, a Geotechnical Investigation concluded that the relatively level ground surface precludes the Project site from susceptibility to seismically-induced soil instability, including lurching and settlement (see Appendix D).30 As such, implementation of the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to adverse effects due to seismic-related ground failure. No impact would result, and no further study of this issue is required.

a.(iv) No Impact. The proposed Project would not expose people or structures to

the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides. The Project site is not within a landslide hazard zone, and no known landslides are located near the Project site, nor is the Project site in the path of any known potential landslides.31 Furthermore, the relatively flat topography at the Project site

27 Ibid. 28 Ibid. 29 California Division of Mines and Geology, Seismic Hazard Zones, Beverly Hills Quadrangle, Official Map,

March 25, 1999. 30 MACTEC. Report of Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Science and Technology Building. December 22,

2008. See Appendix D of this Initial Study. 31 Ibid.


precludes landslide impacts.32 As such, no impact from landslides would occur, and no further study of this issue is required.

b. Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. The relatively flat nature of the Project site precludes it from being readily susceptible to erosion. However, construction of the proposed Project would result in ground surface disruption during excavation and grading that could create the potential for erosion to occur. Since the proposed Project is greater than one acre, the SMMUSD’s construction contractor would prepare and comply with a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which would feature erosion control measures. In addition, the SMMUSD’s construction contractor would comply with the Stormwater Construction Activities General Permit and obtain a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Compliance with the requirements of the NPDES permit and SWPPP and implementation of the required construction best management practices would reduce all impacts due to soil erosion to less than significant, and no further study of this issue is required.

c. No Impact. The Project site is not located on a geologic unit or soil that is

unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the proposed Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. The Project site is not located within a liquefaction area.33 The historic groundwater level at the Project site is greater than 40 feet below surface.34 The Project site is underlain by uniform underlying soils, which are not likely to become unstable during a seismic event and are not subject to settlement or subsidence.35 The Project site is relatively flat and has not historically experienced landslides.36 Nevertheless, the proposed Project would be designed and constructed pursuant to Title 24 of the California Building Standards Code, and other design guidelines established by the site-specific Geotechnical Investigation Report.37,38 As such, no impact would result from on- or off-site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, or liquefaction; no further study of this issue is required.

d. Less Than Significant Impact. The fine grained, clayey soils underlying the Project site are considered to be expansive.39 However, in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation Report, existing soils

32 Ibid. 33 California Division of Mines and Geology, Seismic Hazard Zones, Beverly Hills Quadrangle, Official Map,

March 25, 1999. 34 MACTEC. Report of Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Science and Technology Building. December 22,

2008. See Appendix D of this Initial Study. 35 Ibid. 36 Ibid. 37 California Building Standards Code, CCR, Title 24, 2001. 38 MACTEC. Report of Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Science and Technology Building. December 22,



would be overexcavated and replaced with engineered fill or where appropriate, reused and recompacted as part of the proposed Project. Additionally, the proposed Project would be designed and constructed pursuant to Title 24 of the California Building Standards Code.40 As such, impacts from expansive soil would be less than significant, and no further study of this issue is required.

e. No Impact. The Project site is connected to City sewer and storm drains. As

a result, septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems would not be used. Therefore, no impact with regard to the capability of soils to adequately support the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would result, and no further study of this issue is required.

Further Study Required: No further study of geology and soils is required.

40 California Building Standards Code. CCR, Title 24, 2001.


G. HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the Project:


Impact




Impact No

Impact

a. Create a significant hazard to the public or theenvironment through the routine transport, use,or disposal of hazardous materials?

b. Create a significant hazard to the public or theenvironment through reasonably foreseeableupset and accident conditions involving therelease of hazardous materials into theenvironment?

c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardousor acutely hazardous materials, substances, orwaste within one-quarter mile of an existing orproposed school?

d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant toGovernment Code Section 65962.5 and, as aresult, would it create a significant hazard to thepublic or the environment?

e. Be located on a site within 2 nautical miles(12,152 feet) of a runway or planned runway of apublic airport or private airport?

f. Impair implementation of or physically interferewith an adopted emergency response plan oremergency evacuation plan?

g. Expose people or structures to a significant riskof loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent tourbanized areas or where residences areintermixed with wildlands?

h. Be located on a site that is, (a) a current orformer hazardous waste disposal site or solid waste disposal site and, if so, has the wastebeen removed; (b) a hazardous substancerelease site identified by the State Departmentof Health Services in a current list adoptedpursuant to Section 25356 of Division 20 of theHealth and Safety Code; or (c) a site that contains one or more pipelines, situatedunderground or above ground, which carriesmaterials or hazardous wastes, unless thepipeline is a natural gas line which is used onlyto supply natural gas to that school orneighborhood?


i. Be located within one-fourth mile of anyfacilities, which might be reasonably anticipatedto emit hazardous or acutely hazardousmaterials, substances or waste?

j. Be located on a site where the property line is less than the following distance from the edge ofa respective power line easement:

1. 100 feet of a 50-133 kV line,

2. 150 feet of a 220-230 kV line, or

3. 350 feet of a 500-550 kV line?

k. Be located on a site that is within 1,500 feet of arailroad track easement?

l. Be located on a site that is adjacent or near to amajor arterial roadway or freeway that may posea safety hazard?

m. Be located on a site that is near a reservoir,water storage tanks or high-pressure water lines?

n. Be located within 1,500 feet of a pipeline thatmay pose a safety hazard?

o. Be located on a site that contains, or is near,propane tanks that can pose a safety hazard?

p. Be located on a site that does not have aproportionate length to width ratio toaccommodate the building layout, parking andplay fields that can be safely supervised?

q. Be located on a site that is within 2,000 feet of asignificant disposal of hazardous waste?

Explanation: a. Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed Project

would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Operations of the proposed Science and Technology Building would involve minor transport, storage, use, or disposal of hazardous materials associated with laboratory and auto shop activities. However, no new hazardous materials or uses would occur as a result of the proposed Project and all hazardous materials used at the Project site would continue to be stored, handled, and disposed of in accordance with local, county, and state laws that protect public safety. Proper maintenance and monitoring of ventilation systems would be required during operation of the proposed Project. In the event of an accidental release of minor hazardous materials, the proposed Project would continue to


comply with Santa Monica High School’s Comprehensive School Safety Plan, which requires the following procedures:

• Students in the area of the spill shall be evacuated to an area outside; • Teachers shall proceed with emergency chemical spill procedure provided

in the school’s Chemical Hygiene Plan;41 • If a fire occurs during a chemical spill, the fire alarms shall be pulled and

the fire emergency procedures shall be followed; and42 • The Principal will follow the pre-established district communication

procedures and will then monitor the emergency situation and make decisions about moving groups of students away from areas that might be dangerous.43

As such, impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant and no further study of this issue is required.

b. Potentially Significant Impact. Construction activities for the proposed

Project would be short-term and one-time in nature, and would involve the limited transport, storage, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Some examples of hazardous materials handling include fueling and servicing construction equipment on site and the transport of fuels, lubricating fluids, and solvents. These types of materials, however, are not acutely hazardous, and all storage, handling, and disposal of these materials is regulated by the DTSC, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), CAL/OSHA, the Los Angeles County Fire Department, and the Los Angeles County Health Department. Additionally, due to the age of construction, the existing Science and Technology Buildings may contain asbestos-containing material (ACM) and lead-based paint (LBP). As a result, prior to the demolition of any existing structures at the Project site, the buildings would be assessed and abated for ACMs and LBP. All soil would be assessed for potential LBP residue per the DTSC Interim Guidance for Evaluating Lead-Based Paint and Asbestos Containing Materials at Proposed School Sites.44

Investigations have indicated that elevated levels of certain pesticides were detected in the soil directly adjacent to the existing Science and Technology Buildings. These concentrations exceed the residential California Human Health Screening Levels. In addition, elevated lead (a Title 22 metal) concentrations were detected in the soil directly adjacent to the existing Science and Technology Buildings. An abandoned underground storage tank

41 Santa Monica High School. Comprehensive School Safety Plan. January 30, 2009. 42 Ibid. 43 Ibid. 44 LFR, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Santa Monica High School, Science and Technology

Building and Site Improvements Project. January 20, 2009. See Appendix A of this Initial Study.


(UST) was identified directly northwest of the existing Science and Technology Buildings.45

Any hazardous materials used by the proposed Project would be in small quantities. The use of hazardous materials during operation of the proposed Science and Technology Building would be subject to federal, state, and local health and safety requirements. This would ensure affixing appropriate warning signs and labels, storing hazardous materials in appropriate secured chemical lockers, providing well-ventilated areas and special plumbing where needed, and maintaining adult supervision. Additionally, the proposed Project would continue to comply with the school’s safety policy as described in G(a). Compliance with existing regulations would not result in a reasonably foreseeable upset or accident condition that would create a significant hazard to the public due to the release of hazardous materials with regard to the operation of the proposed Project. However, due to the detection of pesticides, lead, and an abandoned UST on the Project site, a potentially significant impact would result. Further study of this issue is required.

c. Potentially Significant Impact. Elevated levels of certain pesticides were detected in the soil directly adjacent to the existing Science and Technology Buildings. These concentrations exceed the residential California Human Health Screening Levels. In addition, elevated lead (a Title 22 metal) concentrations were detected in the soil directly adjacent to the existing Science and Technology Buildings. An abandoned underground storage tank (UST) was identified directly northwest of the existing Science and Technology Buildings.46 The Project site, Santa Monica High School, is the only school located within one-quarter mile of the Project site.47 As discussed above, school construction and operation would involve the limited use of hazardous materials. The use of all hazardous materials during construction and operation of the proposed Project would be in accordance with applicable federal, state, local, and SMMUSD regulations regarding storage, use, and disposal. Additionally, no new uses beyond those which currently exist within the classrooms, laboratories, and auto shop of the existing Science and Technology Building would occur. However, due to the detection of pesticides, lead, and an abandoned UST on the Project site, a potentially significant impact would result. Further study of this issue is required.

d. Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is listed on three databases

compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5; however, a significant hazard to people or the environment would not occur as a result. The Santa Monica High School campus is listed on the Resource

45 Kroner Environmental Services, Inc. Limited Phase I Addendum Environmental Site Assessment, Onsite

Sources. April 2009. See Appendix B of this Initial Study. 46 Ibid. 47 Thomas Brothers Maps. The Thomas Guide, Los Angeles and Orange Counties. 2005.


Conservation and Recovery Act – Small Quantity Generator (RCRA-SQG), FINDS, and HAZNET databases.48 The FINDS database is merely a pointer to other databases which contain more information regarding the site and in the case of the Project site, it points to the RCRA-SQG database, which indicates sites which process paperwork for the disposal of hazardous materials. No violations have been recorded for the RCRA-SQG listing.49 The listing on the HAZNET database for the Project site indicates that the school is a disposer of hazardous materials, and similar to the RCRA-SQG database, no violations have been reported for the Project site.50 The Santa Monica High School campus is not listed on any hazardous materials databases indicating a release of hazardous materials into the soil or groundwater. Accordingly, impacts related to the inclusion on hazardous materials databases compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 would be less than significant and no further study is required.

e. Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is located approximately 1.7

miles west of Santa Monica Municipal Airport.51 However, the Project site is not located within the airport’s Influence Area nor is it located directly in line with airport runways. 52 As such, the proposed Project would not create a safety hazard for people residing or working in or adjacent to the Project site. Impacts would be less than significant, and no further study of this issue is required.

f. Less Than Significant Impact. Santa Monica High School currently has an

adopted evacuation plan.53 The evaluation plan includes exit routes around the existing Science and Technology Building and involves the existing location of the softball field. The proposed Project would include the reconfiguration of the Science and Technology Building and softball field, which would require a minor revision to the evacuation plan. The proposed Project would conform to applicable City of Santa Monica Fire Department codes and policies. All Project site plans, including the location of all buildings, fences, driveway gates, retaining walls, and other construction affecting Fire Department access, with unobstructed fire lanes for access indicated would be subject to approval by the State Fire Marshal.54 No new uses would occur on-site as a result of the proposed Project and vehicular access plans would be updated and provided to the Santa Monica Fire Department following approval by the State Fire Marshall. As the proposed Project would be designed to allow for adequate emergency access,

48 LFR, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Santa Monica High School, Science and Technology

Building and Site Improvements Project. January 20, 2009. See Appendix A of this Initial Study. 49 Ibid. 50 Ibid. 51 AirNav, LLC. website http://www.airnav.com/. accessed June 4, 2009. 52 City of Santa Monica. Online Property Information System. website http://gismap.santa-

monica.org/imf/imf.jsp?site=property, accessed February 5, 2009. 53 Santa Monica High School. Evacuation Plan. 1999. 54 LFR, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Santa Monica High School, Science and Technology



adequate circulation would be provided for fire and emergency equipment in the site design, and appropriate fire suppression systems would be designed into the proposed Project. By conforming to these regulatory and programmatic controls, the proposed Project would not cause any interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Impacts would be less than significant, and no further study of this issue is required.

g. No Impact. The proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a

risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. The Project site is located in an urbanized portion of the City of Santa Monica that does not include wildlands or high fire hazard terrain or vegetation. Although some ornamental landscaping exists on the Project site, this landscaping is irrigated regularly and is not considered a fire hazard. No impact would occur. The SMMUSD best management practices (BMPs) would ensure that development under the New School Construction Program complies with all applicable local fire code requirements. No impact would occur, and no further study of this issue is required.

h. Potentially Significant Impact. As discussed above, the proposed Project

site is listed on three databases compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. No violations are associated with any of the listings and none of the records indicate that the Project site is: (a) a current or former hazardous waste disposal site or solid waste disposal site; (b) a hazardous substance release site identified by the State Department of Health Services (DHS); or (c) a site that contains one or more pipelines, situated underground or above-ground, which carry materials or hazardous wastes.55,56 The California Department of Education Checklist Study prepared for the Project site determined that no hazardous materials pipelines or high-pressured natural gas pipelines are located within 1,500 feet of the Project site (see Appendix E).57 Eight medium-pressured natural gas pipelines are located within 1,500 feet of the Project site; however, the Checklist Study determined that all eight pipelines are below 80 pounds per square inch of pressure and accordingly, these pipelines do not pose a significant safety risk to the proposed Project occupants.58 However, the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) conducted for the proposed Project identified unresolved records of potential releases associated with past activities at the Project site which may pose a hazard to the soil and groundwater beneath the

55 Ibid. 56 LFR, Inc. Pipelines, Water Tanks, and Aboveground Fuel Storage Tanks, California Department of

Education (CDE) Checklist Item, Santa Monica High School, Science and Technology Building and Site Improvements Project, 601 Pico Boulevard, Santa Monica, California. January 29, 2009. See Appendix E of this Initial Study.

57 Ibid. 58 Ibid.


Project site (see Appendix A). As a result, impacts related to onsite disposal of hazardous waste will be further evaluated in the EIR.

i. Potentially Significant Impact. The Phase I ESA prepared for the proposed

Project determined that the proposed Project site is located within one-quarter mile of five facilities that have the potential to represent a potential environmental concern to the Project site.59 These include the following:

1) Chevron #9-9266, 1732 Lincoln Boulevard; 2) World Oil #16, 1801 Lincoln Boulevard; 3) Arco Realty Property (formerly a Shell Service Station), 1661 Lincoln

Boulevard; 4) Former Mobil Service Station, adjacent to the Former Shell Service

Station; southwest corner of Lincoln Boulevard and Olympic Boulevard; and

5) Former auto shop, machine shop, and foundry within the Business building, historically located adjacent to eastern extension of the Santa Monica High School site.

The former auto shop, machine shop, and foundry within the Business building have been determined to not be within the boundaries of the Project site and would not be disturbed with the proposed Project. A soil gas survey report (see Appendix C) was prepared for the proposed Project under the protocols suggested in the joint California department of Toxic Substances Control/Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (DTSC/LARWQCB). The soil gas report indicated that the gas station sites Chevron #9-9266 and World Oil #16 have had gasoline releases that have impacted non-potable groundwater that flows towards and beneath the Project site. However, both facilities are undergoing remediation and quarterly groundwater monitoring. Chevron #9-9266, which is nearer to the project site, also has a vapor extraction system in place. The soil samples from the Project site were analyzed in accordance with EPA Method 8260B. Soil vapor samples were analyzed for the full range of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPHg), typical gasoline constituents including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX), fuel oxygenates such as methyl tert butyl ether (MTBE), and others. None of these contaminants were detected in the soil vapor samples. A no further action determination by the DTSC would be supported for the Chevron #9-9266 and World Oil #16 sites specifically related to soil gas.60

59 Ibid. 60 Kroner Environmental Services, Inc. Limited Soil Gas Survey Report. April 2009. See Appendix C of this

Initial Study.


However, because the Project site is located within one-quarter mile of five facilities of potential environmental concern related to hazardous materials, a potentially significant impact is anticipated and this issue will require further study.

j. No Impact. All overhead and underground distribution lines located near the

Project site are less than 50 kV.61 As such, no impacts related to proximity to a transmission line would occur and no further study is required.

k. No Impact. The Project site is not located within 1,500 feet of a railroad track

easement.62 As such, no impacts related to proximity to a railway would occur and no further study is required.

l. Potentially Significant Impact. The Project site is located adjacent to or

near a major arterial roadway or freeway that may pose a safety hazard. The Project site is approximately 100 feet south of the I-10 Freeway.63 A traffic study will be completed as part of the EIR. Impacts related to traffic safety hazards will be further evaluated in the EIR.

Pedestrian access to the campus and Project site would not be altered as a result of the proposed Project. Students and faculty/staff entering and leaving the school by foot would continue to do so in the same manner and locations during both construction and operation of the proposed Project. Accordingly, impacts to pedestrian safety would be less than significant and no further study of pedestrian safety is required.

m. Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is not located near a reservoir or water storage tank. No above-ground reservoirs or water storage tanks were observed in the Project site vicinity that may pose a hazard to the proposed Project.64 The Checklist Study identified 12 water pipelines within 1,500 feet of the Project site.65 Accordingly, a Stage 2 Pipeline Risk Analysis was conducted for this pipeline (see Appendix F).66 The California Department of Education (CDE) protocol for pipeline hazards states that a pipeline poses a significant hazard to a site if it could result in a pool of water with a depth of 1 foot or greater following a full rupture for a 5-minute period. According to the analysis, based on the CDE protocol, the maximum impact

61 Southern California Edison. Email from Beatrice Coleman, Service Planner. February 25, 2009. 62 Thomas Brothers Maps. The Thomas Guide, Los Angeles and Orange Counties. 2005. 63 Ibid. 64 LFR, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Santa Monica High School, Science and Technology

Building and Site Improvements Project. January 20, 2009. See Appendix A of this Initial Study. 65 LFR, Inc. Pipelines, Water Tanks, and Aboveground Fuel Storage Tanks, California Department of


66 LFR, Inc. Stage 2 Pipeline Risk Analysis of a High-Volume Water Pipeline Located Within 1,500 Feet of the Santa Monica High School, Science and Technology Building and Site Improvements Project, 601 Pico Boulevard, Santa Monica, California. March 25, 2009. See Appendix F of this Initial Study.


distance of the pipelines in the vicinity of the Project site would be 59 feet. All pipelines identified by the Checklist Study and the Stage 2 Pipeline Risk Analysis are located further than 59 feet from the Project site with the closest pipeline located approximately 205 feet from the Project site. As such, impacts related to pipelines would be less than significant and no further study of this issue is required.

n. No Impact. The Phase I ESA included a search of oil pipeline databases.

No oil pipelines were mapped within proximity to the Project site.67 As discussed under G(h) above, the Checklist Study determined that no hazardous materials pipelines or high-pressured natural gas pipelines are located within 1,500 feet of the Project site.68 Eight medium-pressured natural gas pipelines were identified; however all are under 80 pounds per square inch of pressure and therefore, do not require a pipeline hazard assessment.69 Accordingly, no impacts related to pipelines would occur as a result of the proposed Project and no further study of this issue is required.

o. No Impact. No large propane storage tanks (i.e. non-residential usage) were

observed either on the Project site or in the vicinity.70 Two 32.7 pound propane tanks are stored in the cafeteria at Santa Monica High School and are used for outdoor grilling; however, these tanks are not considered by CDE to be “large” fuel tanks requiring further evaluation. Accordingly, no impact to the proposed Project from propane tanks would occur.

p. No Impact. The proposed Project would not be located on a site that does

not have a proportionate length to width ratio to accommodate the building layout, parking and softball field that can be safely supervised. The proposed Project site currently contains existing Science and Technology Buildings, a parking lot, and a softball field which the proposed Project would replace with a new Science and Technology Building, parking lot, and softball field in a revised configuration. The proposed Project would not require the expansion of the footprint of the existing Project site and no impacts related to adequate site size would occur. No impacts would occur and no further study of this issue is required.

q. No Impact. The proposed Project would not be located on a site that is

within 2,000 feet of a significant disposal of hazardous waste.71 No impact


Building and Site Improvements Project. January 20, 2009. See Appendix A of this Initial Study. 68 LFR, Inc. Pipelines, Water Tanks, and Aboveground Fuel Storage Tanks, California Department of


69 Ibid. 70 Ibid. 71 LFR, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Santa Monica High School, Science and Technology



from significant disposals of hazardous wastes would occur, and no further study is required.

Further Study Required: Further study is required to evaluate potential hazards associated with contaminated soils and groundwater, traffic safety hazards, release of hazardous materials, and handling of hazardous materials within one-quarter-mile of a school.


H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the Project:


Impact




Impact No

Impact

a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere 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)?

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 substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site?

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

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

f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

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?

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

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?

j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?


Explanation: a. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project includes the

demolition of the existing Science and Technology Buildings, parking lot, and softball field and construction of a new Science and Technology Building, parking lot, and softball field. During construction, water used to control dust during grading and construction, as well as storm water, could carry construction debris, spilled fluids (including petroleum products from construction vehicles), and disturbed soils into local and regional waterways. Water quality in Santa Monica is regulated by the State of California Water Quality Control Board (WQCB), Los Angeles Region (Region 4, LARWQCB). The County of Los Angeles issues permits to cities to discharge storm water runoff under NPDES. The LARWQCB requires all discretionary Projects, such as the proposed Project, to incorporate features to filter or retain the first ¾ inch of storm water onsite. Since most pollutants are carried away in the first ¾ inch of rainfall, this requirement would address the primary source of pollution onsite. The proposed Project would be designed to direct and retain stormwater from the building and parking lot in infiltration swales. Only excessive overflow would flow directly to the municipal stormdrain network.72 During construction, adherence to all applicable water quality requirements would be required. Implementation of these requirements, including preparation of a SWPPP, would ensure that impacts to water quality, during construction and operation, are less than significant. No further study of this issue is required.

b. No Impact. Implementation of the proposed Project would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. The Project site is currently developed with impervious surfaces and the proposed Project would replace the existing uses with identical uses. Project design would direct stormwater runoff to infiltration areas and use permeable pavement where feasible, which would promote and increase the amount of recharge at the Project site. Groundwater would not be extracted during construction or operation of the proposed Project. Accordingly, no impact to groundwater recharge would occur as a result of construction or operation of the proposed Project and no further study of this issue is required.

c. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the Project site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site. The Project site is currently an existing school, and attendance at the school site would not increase. Drainage patterns within the Project area are well




established resulting in low potential for drainage alteration in most areas. The SMMUSD would comply with all applicable requirements regulating drainage improvements and grading plans as they relate to construction of on-site improvements that affect off-site drainage. In addition, the SMMUSD shall incorporate standards developed by the Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS) to the extent feasible.73 Impacts regarding the alteration of existing drainage patterns that could result in siltation or erosion would be less than significant. No further study of this issue is required in the EIR.

d. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the Project site or surrounding area, including the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on-or off-site. Drainage patterns within the Project area are well established resulting in low potential for drainage alteration in most areas. The SMMUSD’s construction contractor would comply with all applicable requirements regulating drainage improvements and grading plans as they relate to construction of on-site improvements that affect drainage. Compliance with existing regulations would ensure that that the proposed Project would not adversely affect the local drainage system in a manner that would result in substantial flooding on- or off-site. In addition, the SMMUSD shall incorporate CHPS standards to the extent feasible.74 Impacts would be less than significant, and no further study of this issue is required.

e. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Impervious surfaces such as buildings and parking lots can increase runoff rates through impeding infiltration of rainfall and increasing overland flow velocities. The Project site is currently an existing school, and the capacity of the school site would not increase. The proposed Project would replace the existing Science and Technology Buildings, parking lot, and softball field with a new Science and Technology Building, parking lot, and softball field. Ultimately, the proposed Project would not increase the coverage of impervious surfaces. Furthermore, the Project would be designed to direct stormwater runoff to onsite infiltration areas, which would reduce the amount of runoff currently leaving the Project site. The proposed Project would not generate substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. SMMUSD’s construction contractor would incorporate CHPS standards to the extent feasible for this Project.75 Stormwater quality would also be addressed through regulatory permit requirements and BMPs. Impacts would be less than significant, and no further study of this issue is required.


Building and Site Improvements Project. January 20, 2009. See Appendix A of this Initial Study. 74 Ibid. 75 Ibid.


f. Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed Project

would not substantially degrade water quality. The Project site is currently a portion of an existing school, and the capacity of the school site would not increase. Construction of the proposed Project would include grading and other construction activities that could cause deterioration of water quality. SMMUSD’s construction contractor would comply with NPDES regulations, prepare a SWPPP, incorporate construction BMPs into the proposed Project, and include in the design of the proposed Project BMPs to reduce post-construction runoff.76 Compliance with these regulations and standards would ensure that impacts related to surface water and groundwater water quality would be less than significant during construction and operation. No further study of this issue is required.

g. No Impact. The proposed Project would not 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. Housing is not a component of the proposed Project. In addition, the Project site is not in a flood zone.77,78 No impact with regard to housing within a 100-year flood hazard area would result. No further study of this issue is required.

h. No Impact. The proposed Project would not be placed within a 100-year

flood hazard area, whereby structures would impede or redirect flood flows.79,80 No impact would result, and no further study of this issue is required.

i. Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed Project would not 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. The proposed Project site is not located within a flood hazard area as mapped by FEMA or an area downslope of any large bodies of water which would have potential to impact the Project site through seiche or failure.81 As such, impacts would be considered less than significant, and no further study of this issue is required.

j. No Impact. The proposed Project site is not located within a flood hazard

area as mapped by FEMA, a tsunami run up zone as determined by the City of Santa Monica or the County of Los Angeles, or an area downslope of any large bodies of water which would have potential to impact the Project site


Building and Site Improvements Project. January 20, 2009. See Appendix A of this Initial Study. 77 FEMA. Flood Insurance Rate Map 06037C1590F. September 26, 2008. 78 MACTEC. Report of Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Science and Technology Building. December 22,

2008. See Appendix D of this Initial Study. 79 FEMA. Flood Insurance Rate Map 06037C1590F. September 26, 2008. 80 MACTEC. Report of Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Science and Technology Building. December 22,



through seiche or failure.82 Additionally, the Project site is located outside of any earthquake-induced landslide areas and is relatively flat and would not be susceptible to mudflow.83 As such, no impact would occur, and no further study of this issue is required in the EIR.

Further Study Required: No further study of hydrology and water quality is required.

82 Ibid. 83 MACTEC. Report of Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Science and Technology Building. December 22,

2008. See Appendix D of this Initial Study.


I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the Project:


Impact




Impact No

Impact

a. Physically divide an established community?

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

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

Explanation: a. No Impact. The proposed Project would be entirely located within the

existing Santa Monica High School campus. Therefore, the proposed Project would not divide an established community. The purpose of the proposed Project is to reconfigure the northeast section of an existing school that would improve health, safety, and class instruction.84 The Project site is located within the City of Santa Monica adjacent to residential, commercial, transit and educational land uses. The proposed Project would not displace any existing homes or businesses. Therefore, the Project would not divide an established community, and no further study of this issue is required.

b. Potentially Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed Project

would not conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the proposed Project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The proposed Project site is located within the City of Santa Monica General Plan Area.85 The Project site has a General Plan zoning designation of Medium Density Multiple Family Residential (R3) and is within the Public Lands Overlay District.86,87 Uses permitted within the R3 Zone with a conditional use permit include community care centers, grocery stores, homeless shelters, and schools.88 The R3 Zone allows the development of up to two-story (23-foot-tall) buildings. However, three stories (35 feet) are permitted for “Preferred Permitted Projects” constructed within the R3 Zone. Schools are not listed as Preferred

84 SMMUSD, Measure BB. Full text. Bond Measure Election November 7, 2006. website http://www.smmusd.

org/measureBB/BBfull_text.html, accessed February 5, 2009. 85 City of Santa Monica. Online Property Information System. website http://gismap.santa-monica.org/imf/imf.

jsp?site=property, accessed February 5, 2009. 86 City of Santa Monica Municipal Code. Article 9, Section 9.04.08.06.020 Allowed land uses. 87 City of Santa Monica Districting Map. 2007. 88 Ibid.


Permitted Projects. Therefore, the height limit in the R3 Zone with regard to the proposed Project is two stories (23 feet).

The Project site is currently operating as a high school, which is located within the Public Lands Overlay District of the R3 Zone. The Public Lands Overlay District is intended to provide adequate long-term public institutional and open space opportunities for the entire community and to provide for the most efficient use and conservation of public lands. Proposed development on parcels within the Public Lands Overlay District must comply with the property development standards of the underlying zoning.89 As previously mentioned, the development of schools within the R3 Zone requires a conditional use permit. However, the Project site is also zoned with the Public Lands Overlay District, which specifically permits the Project site’s use as a school without a conditional use permit.90 The proposed Project would be three stories in height, which is above the two-story height limit of the R3 Zone. As such, this proposed Project’s land use compatibility impact would be potentially significant and further study is required.

c. No Impact. The proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. There are no adopted habitat conservation plans in the City of Santa Monica due to its highly urbanized nature, nor is the Project site located in or near any Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) areas.91 Thus, the proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable conservation elements or natural community conservation plan. No impact would occur as a result of the Project, and no further study of this issue is required.

Further Study Required: No further study of land use and planning is required.

89 City of Santa Monica Municipal Code. Article 9, Section 9.04.08.36.060 Property Development Standards. 90 City of Santa Monica Municipal Code. Article 9, Section 9.04.08.36.020 Permitted uses. 91 City of Santa Monica. Online Property Information System. website http://gismap.santa-monica.org/imf/

imf.jsp?site=property, accessed February 5, 2009.


J. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the Project:


Impact




Impact No

Impact

a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

b. 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?

Explanation: a. No Impact. The proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of

a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State. The Project site is an existing school, and the land use would not change as a result of the proposed Project. In addition, Project construction would not displace large quantities of sand or gravel. Accordingly, no impact to the availability of mineral resources would occur as a result of the Project, and no further study of this issue is required.

b. No Impact. Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan. Mineral and energy resources are generally located on industrial lands that are not suitable for school facilities and that would be eliminated from consideration during the initial site screening process. Additionally, the Project site is located in an area where urban development has already occurred. The Santa Monica General Zoning Plan does not indicate an important mineral resource on or near the Project site.92 No impact associated with a locally important mineral resource would occur, and no further study of this issue is required.

Further Study Required: No further study of mineral resources is required.

92 City of Santa Monica. Online Property Information System. website http://gismap.santa-monica.org/imf/imf.

jsp?site=property, accessed February 5, 2009.


K. NOISE. Would the Project result in:


Impact




Impact No

Impact

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?

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

c. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project?

d. If a Project is 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, or within the vicinity of a private airstrip would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels?

Explanation:

a. Potentially Significant Impact. Project construction could potentially expose nearby sensitive uses (such as onsite students or the adjacent residences) to noise levels above established noise standards. The Project would create noise on a short-term basis during construction from equipment and personnel.

Noise impacts associated with the exposure to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established by the City of Santa Monica are considered potentially significant. Analysis of the Project's consistency with local noise standards and guidelines based on existing and proposed land uses within and surrounding the sites will be completed. In addition, the EIR will analyze potential noise impacts of vehicular traffic along the major roadways adjacent to the Project, particularly Olympic Boulevard and I-10 on classrooms and exterior areas of the school.

b. Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed Project may result in excessive exposure of persons to, or generation of, groundborne vibration or noise levels. Demolition and excavation activities could result in minor amounts of groundborne vibration at limited durations. The construction of the Project would not result in blasting or impact-pile driving which could potentially cause significant vibration impacts at close distances. However, typical construction equipment, such as bulldozers, loaded trucks and


jackhammers would generate certain levels of groundbourne vibration during construction activities at short distances from the source. The use of vibration-causing equipment, such as jackhammers, would be limited to a few hours spread over several days and no more than several days total during demolition activities. Several residences located immediately adjacent to the Project site (within 100 feet) and the faculty and students at the existing school site may be subjected to significant vibration. The impact is potentially significant and will be analyzed in the EIR. School operation is not expected to involve any sources that could cause groundborne vibration; therefore, vibration-related impacts during Project operation will not be further evaluated in the EIR.

c. Potentially Significant Impact. As described above, construction of the

Project could result in significant temporary increases in the ambient noise levels at the Project site. The closest off-site sensitive receptors to the Project site are the multi-family apartment buildings located adjacent to the Project site along 7th Court Alley separating the Project site from the adjacent easterly commercial parcels. Additionally, on-site sensitive receptors are the buildings throughout the campus, which would remain in operation during construction. Accordingly, the EIR will evaluate potential impacts to on- and off-site sensitive receptors during construction. A significant noise impact would occur if the proposed Project would result in noise levels that exceed City standards or an increase of 5 dBA in interior classroom noise levels.

Operational noise associated with student and faculty use of the Project site would not be expected to change significantly as a result of the proposed Project. No expansion of facility uses or programs would occur as a result of the proposed Project and student enrollment would not increase. Additionally, no increase in the volume of traffic accessing the Project site would occur. However, relocation of the Science and Technology Buildings closer to major sources of vehicular noise (the I-10 freeway and Olympic Boulevard) would potentially result in an increase in interior noise in excess of City of Santa Monica standards. As such, the EIR will analyze potential noise impacts to interior noise levels within the proposed Science and Technology Building during operation of the school.

d. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is located approximately 1.7 miles west of Santa Monica Municipal Airport.93 However, the Project site is not located within the airport’s Influence Area nor is it located directly in line with airport runways.94 Since the proposed Project land use would not change from the existing condition, impacts related to airport noise would be less than significant. No further study of this issue will be required in the EIR.

93 AirNav, LLC. website http://www.airnav.com/. accessed June 4, 2009. 94 City of Santa Monica. Online Property Information System. website http://gismap.santa-monica.org/imf/imf

.jsp?site=property, accessed February 5, 2009.


Further Study Required: Further study is required to evaluate potential noise impacts related to interior classroom noise and vibration impacts to the adjacent residences from construction activities, as well as noise impacts on interior classrooms resulting from vehicular traffic along the major roadways adjacent to the proposed Project during operation of the school.


L. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the Project:


Impact




Impact No

Impact

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)?

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

c. Displace substantial numbers of businesses or jobs necessitating the construction of replacement businesses elsewhere and/or creating longer travel distances for patrons and/or employees?

Explanation: a. No Impact. The proposed Project would not induce population growth in the

Project area. Implementation of the proposed Project would not be growth-inducing and would not create the need for additional housing. The proposed Project is intended to accommodate projected population growth in the local community. The occupants of the existing Science and Technology Buildings would remain in the building until the new Science and Technology Building is completed.95 Additionally, the proposed Project would not require the extension or increase the capacity of existing off-site infrastructure. The Project is intended to serve existing and future students within the SMMUSD and would not result in the creation of housing or infrastructure that would induce or accelerate population or household growth that would exceed SCAG Year 2020 Projections.96 The number of students attending the school would not be affected by the Project. As such, the Project would not stimulate population growth beyond that already projected to occur. Impacts on population growth would not occur, and no further study is required.

b. No Impact. The proposed Project would not displace existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The Project site is currently a school. No housing exists on the Project site. Thus, the development of the proposed Project would not result in the displacement of existing housing. No impact would occur, and no further study is required.

95 R.L. Binder, FAIA Architecture and Planning. Santa Monica High School New Science and Technology

Building and Site Improvements: BB Fund Schematic Design Report. November 2008. 96 Southern California Association of Governments. 2004 Regional Growth Forecast. website

http://www.scag.ca.gov/forecast/downloads/2004GF.xls, accessed February 5, 2009.


c. No Impact. Implementation of the proposed Project would not displace businesses or jobs necessitating the construction of replacement businesses or jobs elsewhere. The Project site is an existing school and does not contain any businesses. New temporary jobs would be created during construction of the proposed Project. As such, no impacts to the displacement of jobs or businesses would occur, and no further study is required.

Further Study Required: No further study of population and housing is required.


M. 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:


Impact




Impact No

Impact

a. Fire protection?

b. Police protection?

c. Schools?

d. Other public facilities?

Explanation: a. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not result in

adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection. No change in enrollment would occur as a result of the Project and no additional faculty or staff would be required. Fire protection services would continue to be provided to the Project site by the City of Santa Monica Fire Department.97 Fire Station 121, located at 7th Street, approximately 0.4-mile from the Project site, would be the primary responder.98 The secondary responder would be Fire Station 122, located at 222 Hollister Avenue, approximately 0.6-mile from the Project site. Fire protection service needs are generally related to the size of the population and geographic area served, the number and types of calls for service, and other community and physical characteristics. Based on the distance of the nearby fire stations to the Project site, fire protection at the Project site would be considered adequate. No new uses would be introduced on-site and the number of students on campus would not change. As such, the proposed Project would not generate a need for a new fire station. Impacts would be less than significant, and no further study of this issue is required.

b. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically

97 City of Santa Monica. Fire Station Locations. website http://santamonicafire.org/suppression/stations.htm,

accessed February 5, 2009. 98 Ibid.


altered police protection facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection. Student enrollment would not change as a result of the proposed Project. Police protection services would continue to be provided to the Project site by the City of Santa Monica Police Department. Santa Monica High School is located within the service area of Beat A2 of the Santa Monica Police Department Patrol Area.99 Redevelopment of the Project site with comparable new school facilities would not create new demands on police services such that significant impacts to service ratios, response times and other performance objectives would occur. Impacts associated with police service would be less than significant, and no further study of this issue is required.

c. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would physically alter

existing school facilities by reconfiguring the northern portion of the Santa Monica High School campus. However, the proposed Project would not create a need for new or expanded public school facilities; rather, it would reconfigure the existing Science and Technology Buildings, parking lot, and softball field and conduct upgrades to campus-wide electrical and fire alarm systems. As a result, the Project would benefit the existing campus by providing an updated Science and Technology Building, softball field, parking lot and modernized campus’ utilities. Accordingly, impacts to schools would be less than significant and no further study of this issue is required.

d. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered public facilities or services. The proposed Project would not result in an increase in enrollment or faculty/staff. The Project would replace an existing recreational facility (softball field) with a new one in the same portion of the campus. No additional new government facilities would be required and the Project would not contribute to increased demand for additional public services and facilities. Impact would be less than significant, and no further study of this issue is required.

Further Study Required: No further study of public services is required.

99 City of Santa Monica. Santa Monica Police Department Patrol Plan. website

http://www.santamonicapd.org/images/New BeatDesign.pdf, accessed February 9, 2009.


N. RECREATION AND PARKS. Would the Project:


Impact




Impact No Impact

a. 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?

b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

Explanation: a. Potentially Significant. Implementation of the proposed Project would

potentially increase the use of Memorial Park. The proposed Project would temporarily remove the existing softball field at the Project site and softball activities would potentially be relocated to Memorial Park located approximately 0.6-mile to the northeast on Olympic Boulevard between 14th Street and 16th Street. Softball activities would potentially require the use of the field at Memorial Park for one hour per weekday from September through January as well as the month of June. From February through May, softball activities would require use for three hours per weekday plus two games per week. The potential use of the Memorial Park field would occur for the 20 months of construction that the school would be in session. The daily increase in the use of the field would potentially cause physical deterioration of the public recreational facility. Accordingly, further study is required to determine appropriate and feasible mitigation for the impact.

b. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would include

recreational facilities. However, the new softball field would replace the existing softball field and no new recreational activities would be supported by the proposed Project. As such, impacts associated with the construction of recreational facilities would be less than significant. No further study of this issue is required.

Further Study Required: Further study is required to evaluate impacts to Memorial Park during construction of the proposed Project.


O. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the Project:


Impact




Impact No

Impact

a. Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?

b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

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

d. Result in inadequate emergency access?

e. Result in inadequate parking capacity?

f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?

Explanation: a. Potentially Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed Project has

the potential to cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. Although the proposed Project would not result in an increase in overall number of trips to the Project site, the proposed Project would reroute vehicles currently accessing the site via 7th Court Alley to 6th Street from Olympic Boulevard. The re-routing of trips to the Project site could increase the volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio on nearby roadways or increase congestion at intersections. Additionally, during construction of the proposed Project, students would be bused to the nearby Memorial Park or John Adams Middle School for temporary use of the softball fields and construction vehicles would add additional daily trips to and from the Project site. Impacts related to this traffic load and capacity of the street system will be further evaluated in the EIR.

b. Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed Project has the potential to

exceed a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. The statewide Congestion Management Program (CMP), implemented locally by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), requires that


the traffic impacts of development Projects with regional significance must be analyzed for the CMP system of selected arterials and all freeways.100 The thresholds for conducting a CMP analysis are 50 directional trips at a CMP intersection and 150 directional trips on a CMP freeway segment. Although the proposed Project is not expected to affect traffic on a regional basis, it could have a potentially significant impact on nearby CMP-designated facilities through the redistribution of vehicle trips to the new access via 6th Street from Olympic Boulevard. Therefore, a consistency analysis with the CMP will be prepared as part of the EIR.

c. No Impact. The proposed Project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns. The closest public airport, the Santa Monica Municipal Airport, is located approximately 1.7 miles east of the Project site.101 However, the Project site is not located within an aircraft flight path, nor does it include any high-rise structures that could act as a hazard to aircraft navigation.102 The proposed Project site is not located directly in line with airport runways or within the airports Influence Area.103,104 Accordingly, the proposed Project would have no impact on air traffic patterns and no further study of this issue is required.

d. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not result in

inadequate emergency access. The Project would comply with applicable Fire Department regulations, California Building Standards Code, and California Division of State Architect (DSA) requirements.105 The SMMUSD would also provide the local fire department with a full site plan for review, including location of all buildings, fences, drive gates, retaining wall or other features that might affect fire department access, with unobstructed fire lanes for access identified. This review process, along with the SMMUSD’s compliance with the applicable regulations and standards stated above, would ensure that adequate emergency access would be provided. As a result, impacts with regard to emergency access would be less than significant. No further study of this issue is required.

e. Less Than Significant Impact. A Parking Assessment was prepared for the Santa Monica High School campus. The proposed Project would replace an existing parking lot with a newly configured lot to maximize the available parking area. The existing parking lot provides approximately 253 parking spaces: 183 assigned to faculty and staff, 40 spaces assigned to students during a twice-yearly lottery, and 2 spaces for handicapped parking. During

100 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Congestion Management Program. December

1992. 101 AirNav, LLC. website http://www.airnav.com/. accessed June 4, 2009. 102 Ibid. 103 Ibid. 104 City of Santa Monica. Online Property Information System. website http://gismap.santa-monica.org/imf/

imf.jsp?site=property, accessed February 5, 2009. 105 California Building Standards Code, CCR, Title 24, 2001.


construction of the proposed Project, all 253 spaces would be temporarily displaced. Faculty/staff currently assigned to the 183 faculty/staff spaces within the Project site parking lot would be relocated to the Civic Center. Displaced student parking would be accommodated by offsite parking in nearby parking garages. Construction-related parking relocation would be temporary and following construction of the proposed Project, the new parking lot would replace parking on a 1:1 ratio, for a capacity of 253 spaces. Accordingly, impacts related to parking supply would be temporary and less than significant for the proposed Project.

f. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not conflict with

adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. The proposed Project would support alternative transportation for students, such as bicycling or walking, as a result of the close proximity of the school to the community it is intended to serve. The proposed Project would accommodate school bus circulation and would provide bicycle parking. Drop-off activities along Olympic Boulevard would also be improved as a result of the proposed Project. The Project would not conflict with policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Impacts would be less than significant, and no further study of this issue is required in the EIR.

Further Study Required: Further study is required for short-term construction related and long-term operational increases in traffic volumes resulting from the revised site access that would result from the proposed Project, potential impacts on the capacity of the street system, and impacts to the Congestion Management Program.


P. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the Project:


Impact




Impact No

Impact

a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

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?

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

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

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

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

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

Explanation: a. Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed Project

would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. In carrying out construction of the proposed Project, the SMMUSD would become a permittee under the City’s MS4 NPDES permit or obtain its own NPDES permit from the LARWQCB, including requirements for wastewater discharge, BMPs, and a SWPPP. Within the applicable permit, the effluent quality criteria are specified by the LARWQCB, based on receiving water guidelines and waste load allocations. Additionally, the operation of the proposed Project would not result in an increase in enrollment or faculty/staff which would result in an increase in wastewater from the Project and wastewater would continue to flow to the


existing 8-inch sewer line in 7th Street currently serving the existing Science and Technology Buildings. As such, impacts related to wastewater requirements would be less than significant and no further study of this issue is required.

b. Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed Project

would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. As discussed, there would be no increase in student enrollment or faculty/staff employment as a result of the proposed Project and no increase in the demand for water or wastewater treatment facilities would occur. Additionally, the new Science and Technology Building would include energy conservation features and low-flow plumbing fixtures which would decrease water and wastewater demand.106 As such, the potential impacts of the Project on water and wastewater treatment facilities would be less than significant. No further study of this issue is required.

c. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not require the

construction of new stormwater drainage facilities. The Project is the reconfiguration of the northeast section of an existing high school. The proposed Project is intended to reconfigure the existing parking lot, relocate the existing softball field, and replace the existing Science and Technology Buildings. The Project would not increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the Project site and the Project would be designed to retain all stormwater runoff onsite. Only overflow would be directed to the municipal stormdrain network in Olympic Boulevard. As such, the Project would not require the construction of new or expansion of existing stormwater drainage facilities, the construction of which could result in adverse environmental effects. Impacts would be less than significant, and no further study of this issue is required.

d. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would have a less than significant impact associated with water supplies. Distribution infrastructure is already in place on and around the proposed Project site and the existing 8-inch water supply line in Michigan Avenue would adequately supply the new Science and Technology Building.107 The City of Santa Monica is responsible for supplying water within the City limits and for ensuring that the delivered water quality meets applicable California Department of Health Services (DHS) standards for drinking water.108 Because the proposed Project would not result in a change in the number of students or faculty/staff, no substantial increase in water supply requirements would occur. SMMUSD would comply with local, regional, and state water conservation policies and would follow standard BMPs to reduce water

106 R.L. Binder, FAIA Architecture and Planning. Santa Monica High School New Science and Technology

Building and Site Improvements: BB Fund Schematic Design Report. November 2008. 107 Ibid. 108 Department of Health Services. website www.dhs.ca.gov, accessed January 17, 2009.


consumption. Additionally, to conserve water to the maximum extent possible, the City of Santa Monica recommends water conservation measures in landscape, installation, and maintenance (e.g., use drip irrigation and soak hoses in lieu of sprinklers to lower the amount of water lost to evaporation and overspray, set automatic sprinkler systems to irrigate during the early morning or evening hours to minimize water loss due to evaporation, and water less in the cooler months and during the rainy season). The proposed Project would in include a landscape plan that would feature many drought tolerant plants to minimize water usage. In addition, the proposed Project would be required to be constructed in accordance with Title 24 measures and CHPS standards that would lessen a development’s water demand. No increase in students or staff would occur as a result of the Project. Therefore, impacts on water supply would be less than significant, and no further study of this issue is required.

e. Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed Project

would not result in inadequate capacity at the wastewater treatment facility that would serve the proposed Project. The proposed Project would be located on a developed site that currently has sewer line connections that are served by the City of Santa Monica. No increase in student enrollment or faculty/staff would occur as a result of the proposed Project. Therefore, impacts related to adequate wastewater treatment capacity would be less than significant. No further study of this issue is required.

f. Less Than Significant Impact. Solid waste generated in the City of Santa

Monica is currently taken to the Santa Monica Community Recycling Center and Transfer Station. From there, the waste can be sorted and recycled where possible. The remaining solid waste is then disposed of at one many landfill locations within the region. Currently, it is anticipated that solid waste generated by the proposed Project would be taken to Puente Hills Landfill, which has a remaining capacity of approximately 26.6 million tons.109 In addition, the City could potentially seek additional capacity from landfills in Orange, Riverside, and Ventura Counties. The SMMUSD would implement BMPs, such as source reduction, recycling and other diversion measures to reduce solid waste generation impacts to landfills. Furthermore, the proposed Project would be located in a highly developed area that has previously contributed solid waste to regional landfills. As a result, impacts would be less than significant. No further study of this issue is required.

g. Less Than Significant Impact. During construction and operation of the

proposed Project, the SMMUSD would comply with all city, county, and state solid waste diversion, reduction, and recycling mandates, including compliance with the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP) and the Santa Monica Municipal Code (if applicable). Therefore,

109 County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, Puente Hills Landfill Annual Report, November 2007

website: http://www.lacsd.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3228 accessed February 11, 2009.


impacts would be less than significant. No further study of this issue is required.

Further Study Required: No further study of utilities and services systems is

required.


Q. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the Project:


Impact




Impact No

Impact

a. 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?

b. 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)?

c. Have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Explanation: a. Potentially Significant Impact. Because of the highly urbanized nature of

the Project area and surrounding land uses, the Project would not have an impact on the habitat or population level of fish or wildlife species, threaten a plant or animal community, or impact the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal.110 Should the proposed Project require the removal of any onsite landscape trees within the nesting bird season (February 1 through August 31), nesting bird surveys would be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist to ensure that impacts related to biological resources would be less than significant. Offsite trees in public spaces, including adjacent sidewalks, would be protected by the City’s tree protection ordinance and no impacts would occur. Accordingly, impacts to the quality of the biological environment would be less than significant. Barnum Hall, constructed in 1938 and located in the central portion of the campus, was designated as City Landmark No. 47 in 2002.111 In 1993, the City of Santa Monica identified the amphitheater on the southern portion of the campus, which was constructed in 1921, as potentially contributing to the potential Santa Monica Public Schools Thematic District in

110 See Section 3C, Biological Resources. 111 City of Santa Monica. Designated City Landmarks. June 2008. Website http://www01.smgov.net/planning/

planningcomm/designatedlandmarks.html. Accessed May 27, 2009.


the City’s Historic Resources Inventory.112 Further, the potential Santa Monica Public Schools Thematic District does not appear on the City’s list of Designated Historic Districts.113 In addition, no City Structures of Merit are located on the campus.114 Rather, the proposed Project would replace the existing Science and Technology Buildings, 253-space parking lot, and softball field and would not directly alter Barnum Hall. The City is currently in the process of updating its Historic Resources Inventory.115 If the City’s Historic Resources Inventory update is complete prior to the certification of the Final EIR for the proposed Project, the District will evaluate the updated inventory and incorporate, if applicable, into the EIR. Accordingly, further consultation with the City of Santa Monica and analysis are required to determine whether additional presumptive historical resources are present on the campus, and if so, the impacts to these resources. As such, impacts to cultural resources will be further evaluated in the EIR.

b. Potentially Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed Project

would have the potential to have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. Where the Project would have no impact, specifically with respect to agricultural resources, biological resources, mineral resources, and population and housing, it would not contribute to cumulative impacts. In addition, issues specific to site conditions, such as site geology and soils, do not have cumulative effects. The proposed Project is not growth inducing; thus, it would not contribute to the cumulative effects of population growth. The incremental effects of the Project that could contribute to cumulative impacts include air (including greenhouse gas), noise, and traffic impacts. These issues will be further analyzed in the EIR, and subsequently their cumulative effects will also be analyzed in the EIR.

c. Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed Project could potentially

result in environmental effects that may cause adverse effects on human beings, with regard to the following environmental areas discussed in this IS/NOP: aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and traffic. As a result, impacts could be potentially significant, and these issues will be studied further in the EIR.

112 City of Santa Monica. Historic Resources Inventory, California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 Form for Potential Thematic District (Santa Monica Public Schools).1993. 113 City of Santa Monica. Designated Historic Districts. December 2006. website http://www01.smgov.net/

planning/planningcomm/designatedlandmarks.html. accessed May 27, 2009. 114 City of Santa Monica. Designated Landmarks, Historic Districts, and Structures of Merit Map. October 2006.

Website http://www01.smgov.net/planning/planningcomm/designatedlandmarks.html. Accessed May 27, 2009.

115 City of Santa Monica. Roxanne Tanemori, Senior Planner. Email correspondence May 2009.


PREPARERS OF THE INITIAL STUDY AND PERSONS CONSULTED Lead Agency Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD) 1651 Sixteenth Street Santa Monica, CA 90404 Project Applicant’s Representative Parsons/SMMUSD Program 12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1950 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Tom Tomeoni, Program Manager Mitra Nehorai-Tome, Senior Project Manager Project Architect R.L. Binder, F.A.I.A., Architecture & Planning 7726 81st Street Playa del Rey, CA 90293 Kevin Shibata, Project Manager Legal Counsel Orbach, Huff & Suarez LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 575 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Stan M. Barankiewicz II, Esq. Environmental Consultant EDAW AECOM 515 South Flower Street, 9th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Eric Wilson, Principal

Shannon Daniels, Project Manager Marisa Grivas, Senior Environmental Analyst Brian Boecking, Graphics Specialist


REFERENCES AirNav, LLC. website http://www.airnav.com/. accessed June 4, 2009. American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers

(ASHRAE). Standard 55-1992. Addenda 1995. American National Standards Institute (ANSI). ANSI Standards. 1992. California Building Standards Code. California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24,

California Energy Efficiency Standards. 2001. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), Wildlife & Habitat Data Analysis

Branch. CNDDB GIS Data Compact Disc. 2005. California Department of Transportation, State Scenic Highway Program, website:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm, accessed February 9, 2009.

California Division of Mines and Geology G. California Geological Survey Checklist

for the Review of Geological/Seismic Reports for California Public Schools, Hospitals, and Essential Services Buildings. 2003.

California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG). Guidelines for Evaluating and

Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California. State Mining and Geology Board Special Publication 117. 2003.

California Division of Mines and Geology, Seismic Hazard Zones, Beverly Hills

Quadrangle, Official Map, March 25, 1999. California Division of Land Resource Protection Farmland Mapping and Monitoring

Program. website http://www.consrv.ca.gov/DLRP/fmmp/overview/survey_area_map.htm..

California Education Code, Section 38130 et seq., 2006. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code (PRC),

§21000 et al., 2006. California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5., 2006 California High Performance Standards (CHPS). High Performance Schools Best

Practices Manual, Volume III Criteria. November 1, 2001. website www.CHPS.net/manual/documents/2002 updates/CHPSvIILpdf.


California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). Facilities Profiles. website http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Profiles/Facility/.

Caltrans, State Scenic Highway Program, website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq

/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm, accessed February 9, 2009. CCR, Title 5, Article 2, School Sites §14010, Standards for School Site Selection,

2006. CCR, Title 14, Section 670.2 or 670.5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 50,

§ 17.11 or 17.12, 2006. CCR, Section 53097, 2006. CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14, Division 6,

Chapter 3, §15000 et al., 2008. CIWMB. Solid Waste Information Systems. Website http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/swis/,

Accessed June 5, 2006. City of Santa Monica. Designated City Landmarks. June 2008. Website

http://www01.smgov.net/planning/planningcomm/designatedlandmarks.html. Accessed May 27, 2009.

City of Santa Monica. Designated Historic Districts. December 2006. Website

http://www01.smgov.net/planning/planningcomm/designatedlandmarks.html. Accessed May 27, 2009.

City of Santa Monica. Designated Landmarks, Historic Districts, and Structures of

Merit Map. October 2006. Website http://www01.smgov.net/planning/ planningcomm/designatedlandmarks.html. Accessed May 27, 2009.

City of Santa Monica Districting Map. 2007. City of Santa Monica. Fire Station Locations. website

http://santamonicafire.org/suppression/stations.htm, accessed February 5, 2009. City of Santa Monica. Historic Resources Inventory, California Department of Parks

and Recreation (DPR) 523 Form for Potential Thematic District (Santa Monica Public Schools). 1993.

City of Santa Monica. Online Property Information System. website

http://gismap.santa-monica.org/imf/imf.jsp?site=property, accessed February 5, 2009.


City of Santa Monica Municipal Code. Article 9, Section 9.04.08.06.020 Allowed land uses.

City of Santa Monica Municipal Code. Article 9, Section 9.04.08.36.020 Permitted

uses. City of Santa Monica Municipal Code. Article 9, Section 9.04.08.36.060 Property

Development Standards. City of Santa Monica. Roxanne Tanemori, Senior Planner. Email correspondence

May 2009. City of Santa Monica. Santa Monica Police Department Patrol Plan. website

http://www.santamonicapd.org/images/New BeatDesign.pdf, accessed February 9, 2009.

Clean Water Act, Section 402, 2006. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 50, Section 17.11 or 17.12. County of Los Angeles, Department of Regional Planning. General Plan Program

Update. website http://planning.co.la.ca.us/gp_update/drp_gp_supp_info.htm, accessed May 2, 2006.

County of Los Angeles, Department of Regional Planning. Flood and Inundation

Hazards Map. January 1990. County of Los Angeles, Department of Regional Planning. Technical Appendix to the

Safety Element of the Los Angeles County General Plan. January 1990. County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, Puente Hills Landfill Annual

Report, November 2007 website: http://www.lacsd.org/civica/filebank/ blobdload.asp?BlobID=3228 Department of Health Services. website www.dhs.ca.gov, accessed January 17, 2009.

Cy Carlberg, Registered Consulting Arborist. Santa Monica High School – Tree

Report. April 2009. Department of Health Services. website www.dhs.ca.gov, accessed January 17,

2009. Federal Railroad Administration. High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and

Vibration Impact Assessment. 1998. FEMA. Flood Insurance Rate Map 06037C1590F. September 26, 2008.


Kroner Environmental Services, Inc. Limited Soil Gas Survey Report. April 2009. See Appendix C of this Initial Study.

Kroner Environmental Services, Inc. Limited Phase I Addendum Environmental Site

Assessment, Onsite Sources. April 2009. See Appendix B of this Initial Study. LFR, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Santa Monica High School,

Science and Technology Building and Site Improvements Project. January 20, 2009.

LFR, Inc. Pipelines, Water Tanks, and Aboveground Fuel Storage Tanks, California

Department of Education (CDE) Checklist Item, Santa Monica High School, Science and Technology Building and Site Improvements Project, 601 Pico Boulevard, Santa Monica, California. January 29, 2009.

LFR, Inc. Stage 2 Pipeline Risk Analysis of a High-Volume Water Pipeline Located

Within 1,500 Feet of the Santa Monica High School, Science and Technology Building and Site Improvements Project, 601 Pico Boulevard, Santa Monica, California. March 25, 2009.

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Congestion Management

Program. December 1992. MACTEC. Report of Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Science and Technology Building. December 22, 2008. See Appendix D of this Initial Study. Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Title 16, Chapter 7. Protection of Migratory Game and

Insectivorous Birds. (16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712. website http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode16/usc_sup_01_16_10_7.html.

PCR Services Corporation. Historic Resources Evaluation Report for the Santa

Monica-Malibu Unified School District Measure BB Program. June 2008. R.L. Binder, FAIA Architecture and Planning. Santa Monica High School New

Science and Technology Building and Site Improvements: BB Fund Schematic Design Report. November 2008.

Santa Monica High School. Comprehensive School Safety Plan. January 30, 2009. Santa Monica High School. Evacuation Plan. 1999. Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD), Measure BB. Full text.

Bond Measure Election November 7, 2006. website http://www.smmusd.org/ measureBB/BBfull_text.html, accessed February 5, 2009.


Santa Monica Police Department Patrol Plan, website: http://www.santamonicapd. org/images/NewBeatDesign.pdf, accessed February 9, 2009.City of Santa Monica Municipal Code. Article 7, Section 7.40.160: Protection of trees.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). CEQA Air Quality

Handbook. November 1993. Southern California Edison. Email from Beatrice Coleman, Service Planner.

February 25, 2009. SCAQMD. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. November 1993. SCAQMD. Rule 402 – Nuisance. Adopted May 7, 1976. SCAQMD. Rule 1403 - Asbestos Emissions From Demolition/Renovation Activities.

website http://www.arb.ca.gov/DRDB/SC/CURHTML/R1403.HTM. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2004 Regional Growth

Forecast. website http://www.scag.ca.gov/forecast/downloads/2004GF.xls, accessed February 5, 2009.

Thomas Brothers Maps. The Thomas Guide, Los Angeles and Orange Counties.

2005. US Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetland Inventory, Wetlands Online Mapper.

website http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/wtlnds/launch.html, accessed February 5, 2009.

US Geological Survey. Preliminary Geologic Map of the Los Angeles 30’ x 60’

Quadrangle, Southern California. 2005.

Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District Santa Monica ... · Santa Monica High School Science...

Documents

Transcript of Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District Santa Monica ... · Santa Monica High School Science...