jordan high school major renovation project initial...

Jordan High School Major Renovation Project

Initial Study

Prepared for:

Long Beach Unified School District 2425 Webster Avenue

Long Beach, California 90810

Prepared by:

AECOM Technical Services, Inc. 515 South Flower Street, 9th Floor

Los Angeles, California 90071

July 2013

Jordan High School Major Renovation Project Initial Study Page i Long Beach Unified School District July 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page No. 1.0 Project Description ............................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Project Background ................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Overview of the Project ........................................................... 1-1 1.3 California Environmental Quality Act ...................................... 1-2 1.4 Project Location and Setting ................................................... 1-3 1.5 Existing Project Site ................................................................ 1-3 1.6 Project Objectives ................................................................... 1-7 1.7 Proposed Project Phasing Details .......................................... 1-7 1.8 Additional Features of the Project ......................................... 1-12 1.9 Project Construction ............................................................. 1-12 1.10 Compliance with Regulations and Policies ........................... 1-13 1.11 Required Permits and Approvals .......................................... 1-15 2.0 Initial Study Checklist .......................................................................................... 2-1 I. Aesthetics ............................................................................. 2-16 II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources ..................................... 2-18 III. Air Quality ............................................................................. 2-19 IV. Biological Resources ............................................................ 2-22 V. Cultural Resources ............................................................... 2-24 VI. Geology and Soils ................................................................. 2-28 VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................. 2-31 VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................... 2-31 IX. Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................ 2-35 X. Land Use and Planning ........................................................ 2-38 XI. Mineral Resources ................................................................ 2-39 XII. Noise ..................................................................................... 2-40 XIII. Population and Housing ........................................................ 2-42 XIV. Public Services ..................................................................... 2-43 XV. Recreation ............................................................................ 2-44 XVI. Transportation/Traffic ............................................................ 2-45 XVII. Utilities and Service Systems ............................................... 2-48 XVIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance ...................................... 2-50 3.0 List of Preparers ................................................................................................. 3-1 4.0 Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................. 4-1 5.0 References ......................................................................................................... 5-1

Page ii Jordan High School Major Renovation Project Initial Study July 2013 Long Beach Unified School District

TECHNICAL APPENDICES Appendix A Historic Resources Assessment Report Appendix B Draft Geotechnical and Geological Engineering Investigation

Report and Phase 1 North Campus Geotechnical and Geological Engineering Investigation Report

Appendix C Hazardous and Non-Hazardous Materials Inspection Report Appendix D Abatement Specifications Report

List of Figures

Figure 1 Regional Location Map ....................................................................... 1-4 Figure 2 Project Site Location .......................................................................... 1-5 Figure 3 Existing Project Site ........................................................................... 1-6 Figure 4 Proposed Master Plan ........................................................................ 1-8 Figure 5 Project Phasing Plan .......................................................................... 1-9 Figure 6 Buildings/Portables to be Demolished .............................................. 1-11

Jordan High School Major Renovation Project Initial Study Page 1-1 Long Beach Unified School District July 2013

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1.1 Project Background

The Long Beach Unified School District (LBUSD) serves nearly 82,000 students in 83 public schools, and is considered the third largest school district in California. More than 80 percent of LBUSD’s permanent school buildings were built prior to 1970. Most of the aging schools within LBUSD need modernization and/or renovation to meet new building standards and to continue serving student needs. On January 22, 2008, the LBUSD adopted a Facility Master Plan (FMP), which is intended to implement various school facility construction and renovation projects within LBUSD over the next 20 to 25 years. The projects include retrofitting schools to meet new earthquake safety standards, meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility requirements, remove lead-based paint and asbestos, upgrade and expand educational technology, and build smaller high school learning communities. In addition, on November 4, 2008, the voters in the LBUSD approved Measure K, a $1.2 billion classroom repair and student safety bond. The Jordan High School Major Renovation Project (proposed project) is one of the projects identified in the FMP and funded by Measure K.

1.2 Overview of the Project

The LBUSD is proposing to renovate and modernize the existing David Starr Jordan (Jordan) High School campus located in the City of Long Beach. The campus currently has an enrollment of 3,200 students in grades 9 through 12, which are housed within 18 buildings, 99 permanent classrooms, and 32 portable classrooms. The existing student capacity, at an average of 30 students per class, is 3,930. The 26.9-acre project site currently consists of approximately 332,583 square feet of permanent building space and an additional approximately 30,720 square feet of portable structures (approximately 363,303 total square feet). The existing permanent buildings were constructed in the 1930s and 1940s, with some additions completed in the 1950s through the 1990s. The existing high school campus is outdated and many classrooms do not meet the current needs of students.

The proposed project would include implementation of the proposed campus master plan in approximately six phases starting in January 2014, with the full buildout being completed over several years, in approximately 2028, as funding becomes available. To implement the campus master plan, the proposed project would include demolition of approximately 10 permanent buildings and 32 portable buildings, renovation of approximately 213,000 square feet of existing building space, and construction of approximately 240,000 square feet of new building space. At full buildout, the project site would consist of approximately 453,000 square feet of total building space.

At project buildout, the total capacity of the school would be 3,870 students, based on an average of 30 students per class. The number of classrooms would be decreased from 131 to 129. As there would be fewer classrooms under the proposed project, capacity would decrease from existing conditions. Additionally, no change in enrollment would occur with implementation of the proposed project. Although the overall square footage on campus would increase, the additional square footage would account for laboratories and other ancillary facilities. Land uses on the project site would not change and the proposed project would not result in an expansion of uses. All phases of the proposed project would be contained within the existing boundaries of the school site.

2 Jordan High School Major Renovation Project Initial Study July 2013 Long Beach Unified School District

An additional parking lot would be constructed at the southwestern portion of the campus. Additionally, the existing parking lot located within the northern portion of the project site would be reconfigured, but no changes to the campus ingress and egress points are proposed. The student drop-off area and parking lot along Atlantic Avenue would be reconfigured but would remain in the same location. Site walkways and restrooms would also be upgraded to meet ADA requirements.

The existing auditorium on the project site would be upgraded to existing seismic codes. Improvements to the auditorium would consist of structural upgrades, improvements to the building interior, auditorium stage and seating, lighting and sound systems, fire alarm system, emergency lighting systems and plumbing systems.

The proposed project would also create modern facilities that would ensure the school’s ability to accommodate changing programmatic needs. Other elements to be implemented as part of the proposed project include the following:

Six academies or small learning communities, each with two universal/flexible laboratory spaces

Standard classroom size of approximately 960 square feet Visual and performing arts facilities Science and technical laboratories Renovation of existing media center Physical education and athletic facilities Special needs classroom facilities Fire alarms, communications, and technology facilities Cafeteria and food service facilities Landscaping, site utilities, and site improvements

1.3 California Environmental Quality Act

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) applies to proposed projects initiated by, funded by, or requiring discretionary approvals from state or local government agencies. The proposed project constitutes a project as defined by CEQA (California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.). CEQA Guidelines Section 15367 states that a “Lead Agency” is “the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project.” Therefore, LBUSD is the lead agency responsible for compliance with CEQA for the proposed project.

As lead agency for the proposed project, LBUSD must complete an environmental review to determine if implementation of the proposed project would result in significant adverse environmental impacts. To fulfill the purpose of CEQA, an Initial Study has been prepared to assist in making that determination. Based on the nature and scope of the proposed project and the evaluation contained in the Initial Study environmental checklist (contained herein), LBUSD, as the lead agency, has concluded that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is the proper level of environmental documentation for this project. The Initial Study describes potentially significant impacts caused by the proposed project that would be further studied in the EIR.


1.4 Project Location and Setting

Jordan High School is located at 6500 Atlantic Avenue in the northern portion of the City of Long Beach. Regional access to the project site is provided via State Route 91 (SR 91), located approximately 0.25 miles north of the project site, and Interstate 710 (I-710), located approximately 0.45 miles west of the project site. The project site is located approximately 0.35 miles southeast of the I-710 and SR 91 interchange, which partially spans the Los Angeles River. Figure 1 shows the regional location of the project site. Local access is provided via major north-south and east-west oriented roads including Artesia Boulevard, located approximately 335 feet north of the project site; Orange Avenue, located approximately 0.28 miles east of the project site; Harding Street, located approximately 0.23 miles south of the project site; and Atlantic Avenue, which forms the western boundary of the project site.

The project site is bound by single-family residences on the north, Myrtle Avenue on the east, Houghton Park on the south, and Atlantic Avenue on the west. Single-family residences are located to the north, east, south, and west of the project site, with some multi-family residential uses located west of the project site. Several single-family residences are located adjacent to the northern property line of the project site. These residences front Coolidge Street, an east-west oriented cul-de-sac located north of the project site, while their backyard areas are directly adjacent to the project site. Additionally, some commercial land uses are located northwest of the project site at the intersection of Atlantic Avenue and Artesia Boulevard. Houghton Park, located directly adjacent to the southern boundary of the project site, includes 26.4 acres consisting of open grassy areas, a baseball field, a basketball court, community center, picnic area, playground, soccer and softball fields, tennis courts, and a volleyball court. The park hosts various City of Long Beach (City) youth recreation programs and adult classes, and includes a teen and a senior center. In addition, Houghton Park is one of several parks currently in a joint use agreement between LBUSD and the City of Long Beach for use of the park for school activities. The project site is located approximately 0.22 miles east of the Los Angeles River. Figure 2 shows the project site location.

1.5 Existing Project Site

The project site currently includes approximately 18 buildings and 32 portable classrooms with a total of 131 classrooms on-site. There is a track and football field with bleachers that seat 5,000 people, as well as baseball and practice fields. The majority of the buildings on the project site are one to two stories in height, with the exception of the Science Building, which is located in the central portion of the campus and is three stories tall. Although the auditorium located in the northern portion of the project site is only two stories, it is the tallest building on the project site at approximately 60 feet tall. Approximately 227 surface parking spaces are provided for staff, faculty, and students on the project site, and vehicular access to the project site is provided along Myrtle Avenue on the east side of the campus. The main access to the project site and student drop-off area is provided along Atlantic Avenue on the west side of the campus. In addition, a County of Los Angeles sewer easement traverses the project site. Figure 3 shows the existing uses and layout of the project site.

§̈¦5

Los Angleles

LOS ANGELES

ORANGE

KERN

VENTURA

SAN

BERN

ARDI

NO

§̈¦5

§̈¦605

§̈¦405

§̈¦210

§̈¦710

§̈¦105

§̈¦10

§̈¦110

£¤101

£¤101

UV14

UV60

UV210UV134

UV91

UV22

UV2

UV241UV55

UV110

UV73

UV118

UV261

UV1

UV90

UV47

UV133

UV71

UV57

UV14

UV138

UV1

Lancaster

Long Beach

Irvine

Pasadena

Burbank

Santa Clarita

Whittier

Santa Monica

Covina

Thousand Oaks

Beverly Hills

Redondo Beach

San Fernando

Source: ESRI 2012 Imagery

Figure 1Regional Location Map

0 5 10 15 20Miles

P a c i f i c O c e a n

´Jordan High School Major Renovation Project

Project Location

^̀

LOS A

NGEL

ES RI

VER

§̈¦710

UV91

Source: ESRI 2011

0 250 500 750 1,000Feet´

Jordan High School Major Renovation Project

Figure 2Project Site Location

Source: ESRI 2011


Figure 3

Existing Project Site0 50 100 200

Feet


1.6 Project Objectives

As previously discussed, the FMP was adopted in order to implement various school facility construction and renovation projects within LBUSD. In the FMP, the proposed project is designated as a high priority project by the Internal Executive Committee. Consistent with the primary planning goals of the FMP, the project objectives include the following:

1. Creating learning environments to meet the needs of Jordan High School students a. Increase classroom size to meet current educational goals b. Create career technical education labs

2. Renovating and replacing aging infrastructure a. Modernize building systems b. Improve technology infrastructure c. Improve energy efficiency

3. Elimination of portables and bungalows a. Remove portables

4. Maintaining consolidated 9th through 12th grade high school programs

5. School safety and security a. Improve parking and drop-off areas

The LBUSD has adopted the Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS) Criteria as part of the FMP. The mission of CHPS is to facilitate the design, construction and operation of high performance schools that are not only energy and resource efficient, but also healthy, comfortable, and well-lit, and that provide amenities for a quality education. Consistent with the goals of the CHPS, additional project objectives also include the following:

Increase student performance with better-designed and healthier facilities; Raise awareness of the positive impact and advantages of high performance

schools; and Provide professionals with better tools to facilitate effective design, construction and

maintenance of high performance schools. Improve energy and water efficiency; and Meets CHPS criteria.

1.7 Proposed Project Phasing Details

Figure 4 illustrates the proposed master plan and Figure 5 shows the phased implementation of the master plan in approximately six phases. Funding is currently available to construct Phases 1, 2, and 4, which would begin in approximately January 2014 and end in the summer of 2020. The implementation of Phases 3, 5, and 6 would be dependent on the availability of funding. The funding for Phase 4 would be separate from the rest of the phases; however, this phase is included in the campus master plan and would be constructed as part of the proposed project. The proposed renovation of buildings would not include major exterior alterations, but primarily interior remodeling, with some replacement of roofing and/or heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment.

Source: ESRI 2011


Figure 4

Proposed Master PlanNot to Scale

Renovation

New Construction

Legend

Atlantic Ave

Myrtle Ave

Source: ESRI 2011


Figure 5

Project Phasing PlanNot to Scale


Phase 1A would include the construction of interim housing on the existing baseball and athletic practice fields located on the southeastern portion of the project site from approximately January 2014 through August 2014. Interim housing includes a total of approximately 49 portable classrooms that would be used temporarily. Portable classrooms would be leased for the interim housing and would vary in size from 960 square feet to 1,440 square feet. In addition, approximately four relocatable restrooms would be leased for use in conjunction with the interim housing. Approximately six new tennis courts would be constructed during this phase. The interim housing would be occupied with students from approximately fall of 2014 through fall of 2020, and would be demolished or removed following the completion of Phase 2 construction activities. While the baseball and athletic practice fields are occupied with interim housing, school athletic teams would use other nearby LBUSD athletic facilities for practices and games. The baseball and athletic practice fields on the project site would be restored once the use of interim housing is complete.

Phase 1B would include the development of the northern portion of the project site from approximately July 2014 to June 2016. Phase 1B would include the new construction of the Cafeteria, two classroom buildings and approximately 137 parking spaces.

Phase 1C would develop the northern portion of the project site from approximately July 2016 to June 2018, and would include the new construction of two new classroom buildings and 91 parking spaces.

Phase 2 would include the development of the western portion of the project site from approximately June 2016 through June 2020. Phase 2A would include the renovation/interior remodeling of the Administration Building, Media Center, and Band Building, and construction of parking from approximately June 2016 through August 2016. Phase 2B would include the new construction of two new classroom buildings and renovation/interior remodeling of Special Education classrooms from approximately July 2018 through June 2020. Phase 3 would include the renovation/interior remodeling of the Science Building.

Phase 4 would include modernization of the auditorium on the northern portion of the project site. Implementation of Phase 4 would occur from approximately July 2016 through December 2017, which would overlap with the construction schedule for Phase 1C.

Phase 5 would reconfigure the athletic fields, bleachers, hard court area, and play fields. Lastly, Phase 6 would renovate/remodel the Gymnasium and Natatorium (pool) Buildings. The existing track and football field would be demolished and reconstructed to accommodate a new six-lane running track. The existing volleyball and basketball courts would remain in place.

As previously discussed, the implementation of Phases 3, 5, and 6 would be dependent on the availability of funding. Construction of these phases would begin in approximately 2020 and be completed in 2028.

As shown in Figure 6, approximately 10 buildings would be demolished with the proposed project. The full buildout would include the renovation/interior remodeling of approximately 213,000 square feet of existing building space and the construction of approximately 240,000 square feet of new building space. At full buildout, the project site would consist of

Source: ESRI 2011


Figure 6

Bulidings / Portables to be Demolished0

Feet

50 100 200

Buildings to beDemolished

Legend

Myrtle Ave

Atlanic Ave


approximately 453,000 square feet of total building space. The overall number of classrooms on the campus would be decreased by 2 for a total of 129. All existing and leased portables would be permanently removed from the project site at the completion of the proposed project. No increase in student enrollment is anticipated and total capacity of the school site would be 3,870 students at project buildout. As there would be fewer classrooms under the proposed project, total capacity would be decreased from existing conditions. Although the overall square footage on campus would increase, the additional square footage would account for laboratories and other ancillary facilities. Land uses on the project site would not change and the proposed project would not result in an expansion of uses. All phases of the proposed project would be contained within the existing boundaries of the school site.

Additional parking would be constructed within the northern portion of the project site, and the student drop-off and parking area, including 80 parking spaces, along Atlantic Avenue would be reconfigured. Site walkways and restrooms would be upgraded for accessibility and some trees would be removed as part of building demolition activities.

No new buildings constructed would be over two stories in height and no additional levels would be added to any existing buildings that would remain in place.

1.8 Additional Features of the Project The LBUSD has enacted Resolution No. 012208-B on sustainability, design guidelines and the adoption of the CHPS Criteria. This resolution states that LBUSD would agree and adhere to the following:

CHPS has developed comprehensive design criteria based on the latest available information on sustainable school design, construction, and operation.

LBUSD is interested in an integrated design approach that takes advantage of energy savings that become feasible when the interaction between separate building elements, such as windows, lighting, and mechanical systems are considered.

School should employ design, construction and operation strategies that minimize environmental impacts and operating costs, including energy and water efficiency.

The principles and driving factors when considering materials and equipment for sustainable design includes the application of low-impact materials, energy efficiency, quality, durability, maintainability and lifecycle costs.

Building or renovating a school provides a unique opportunity to move beyond standard designs to create school facilities and incorporate/apply substantial design guidelines to the extent feasible.

Sustainable design reduces the impact to the environment by promoting responsible use of resources. It is environmentally friendly to the surrounding community and will positively impact the LBUSD and its constituents in the future.

1.9 Project Construction

As previously discussed, construction of the proposed project would occur in approximately six phases (see Figure 4). Students would remain on campus during the construction period and interim housing consisting of portable classrooms would be provided. Construction of Phases 1, 2, and 4 would begin in January 2014 and end in the fall of 2020. Phases 3, 5, and 6 would be constructed over the next several years, from approximately 2020 through


2028, subject to the availability of funding. In addition to demolition activities and hauling, it is anticipated that minor site grading would be required for the areas where new buildings would be constructed. The proposed renovation of buildings would not include major exterior alterations, but primarily interior remodeling, with some replacement of roofing and/or HVAC equipment. The construction of the proposed project is expected to remain within the boundaries of the project site.

The installation of numerous stone columns would be required with the foundations of new buildings constructed during phases 1B, 1C, and 2A, due to the presence of some sandy soils and a liquefaction zone on a portion of the project site. Each stone column would be approximately three feet in diameter and would be drilled approximately 35 feet into the ground. In some cases, a compaction grouting process (displacing and compacting the soil) would be utilized instead of the installation of stone columns.

Proposed project construction activities would take place in accordance with the City of Long Beach Municipal Ordinance 8.80.202, which allows construction activities to occur between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No construction activities are allowed to occur on Sundays.

1.10 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:

Any new laboratories constructed 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 vegetation clearance that is scheduled to occur during nesting bird season (generally February 15 through September 15). Per the Migratory Bird Treaty Act requirements, a qualified biologist shall conduct a nest survey within one week of the start of construction involving vegetation clearance to ensure that no active nests are present. If an active nest is located, then the nest shall be flagged and construction within an appropriate buffer of the nest shall be postponed until the biologist has confirmed that the nest is no longer active.

In accordance with the provisions of 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 LBUSD 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 California Building Code and the California Department of


Conservation, Divisions of Mines and Geology requirements, which are designed to address the risks associated with seismic ground shaking. The design of the proposed new buildings shall 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 LBUSD’s construction contractor shall prepare and comply with a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which would feature erosion control measures. In addition, the LBUSD’s construction contractor shall comply with the Stormwater Construction Activities General Permit and obtain a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Erosion control and grading plans may include, but would not be limited to, the following:

Minimizing the extent of disturbed areas and duration of exposure; Stabilizing and protecting disturbed areas; Keeping runoff velocities low; and Retaining sediment within the construction area. Construction erosion control best management practices (BMPs) may include the

following: o Temporary desilting basins; o Silt fences; o Gravel bag barriers; o Temporary soil stabilization with mattresses and mulching; o Temporary drainage inlet protection; and o Diversion dikes and interceptor swales.

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 study (Appendix B).

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 shall be conducted to determine the presence of ACM and LBP. If present, all ACM and LBP shall be removed prior to the start of demolition in accordance with SCAQMD’s practices for ACM (Rule 1403).1

The proposed project would implement Rule 403 dust control measures required by the SCAQMD, which would include the following:

Water shall be applied to exposed surfaces at least two times per day to prevent generation of dust plumes.

The construction contractor shall utilize at least one of the following measures at each vehicle egress from the project site to a paved public road:

o Install a pad consisting of washed gravel maintained in clean condition to a depth of at least six inches and extending at least 30 feet wide and at least 50 feet long;

1 SCAQMD. Rule 1403 - Asbestos Emissions From Demolition/Renovation Activities. Website

http://www.arb.ca.gov/ DRDB/SC/CURHTML/R1403.HTM.


o Utilize a wheel shaker/wheel spreading device consisting of raised dividers at least 24 feet long and 10 feet wide to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages; or

o Install a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages.

All haul trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials shall be covered (e.g., with tarps or other enclosures that would reduce fugitive dust emissions).

Construction activity on exposed or unpaved dirt surfaces shall be suspended when wind speed exceeds 25 miles per hour (such as instantaneous gusts).

Ground cover in disturbed areas shall be replaced in a timely fashion when work is completed in the area.

Streets shall be swept at the end of the day if visible soil is carried onto adjacent public paved roads. If feasible, water sweepers with reclaimed water shall be used.

LBUSD would coordinate with the City of Long Beach to develop a traffic management plan for any temporary lane closures. The traffic management plan would include the following requirements:

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

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

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

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

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

1.11 Required Permits and Approvals

Various approvals would be required in order to implement the proposed project. These include the following:

Long Beach Unified School District (adoption of the environmental document and approval of the project)

Division of State Architect (approval of construction drawings for Structural, Fire & Life Safety, and Accessibility compliance)

Department of Toxic Substances Control (Determination of “No Further Action”) Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 4 (National Pollutant

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

City of Long Beach Fire Department (approval of site plan emergency access)


This page is intentionally left blank


2.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

The following discussion of potential environmental effects was completed in accordance with Section 15063(d)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines (2013) to determine if the proposed project may have a potentially significant effect on the environment.

Project Title: Jordan High School Major Renovation Project

Lead Agency: Long Beach Unified School District 1515 Hughes Way Long Beach, California 90810

Contact Person: Tom Rizzuti, Administrative Coordinator Facilities Development & Planning Long Beach Unified School District

2425 Webster Avenue Long Beach, California 90810

Email: [email protected]

Project Location: 6500 Atlantic Avenue Long Beach, California 90805

General Plan Designation: Institutions/Schools

Zoning: Institutional

Description of Project:

The LBUSD is proposing to renovate and modernize the existing Jordan High School campus located in the City of Long Beach. The 26.9-acre campus currently includes approximately 328,512 square feet of permanent building space and an additional approximately 22,080 square feet of portable structures (approximately 350,592 total square feet). The existing permanent buildings were constructed in the 1930s and 1940s, with some additions completed in the 1950s through the 1990s.

The proposed project would include implementation of the proposed campus master plan in approximately six phases starting in January 2014, with the full buildout being completed over several years, in approximately 2028, as funding becomes available. To implement the campus master plan, the proposed project would include demolition of approximately 10 permanent buildings and 32 portable buildings, renovation of approximately 213,000 square feet of existing building space, and construction of approximately 240,000 square feet of new building space. At full buildout, the project site would consist of approximately 453,000 square feet of total building space. The overall number of classrooms on the campus would be decreased by 2 for a total of 129.

At project buildout, the total capacity of the school would be 3,870, based on an average of 30 students per class, at project buildout. The number of classrooms would be decreased from 131 to 129. As there would be fewer classrooms under the proposed project, capacity would decrease from existing conditions. Additionally, no change in enrollment would occur with implementation of the proposed project. Although the overall square footage on campus would increase, the additional square footage would account for laboratories and


other ancillary facilities. Land uses on the project site would not change and the proposed project would not result in an expansion of uses. All phases of the proposed project would be contained within the existing boundaries of the school site.

An additional parking lot would be constructed at the southwestern portion of the site. Additionally, the existing parking lot located within the northern portion of the project site would be reconfigured, but no changes to the campus ingress and egress points are proposed. The student drop-off area and parking lot along Atlantic Avenue would be reconfigured but would remain in the same location. Site walkways and restrooms would also be upgraded to meet ADA requirements.

The existing auditorium on the project site would be upgraded to existing seismic code. Improvements to the auditorium would consist of structural upgrades, improvements to the building interior, auditorium stage and seating, lighting and sound systems, fire alarm system, emergency lighting systems and plumbing systems.

The proposed project would create modern facilities that would ensure the school’s ability to accommodate changing programmatic needs. Other elements to be implemented as part of the proposed project include the following:

Six academies or small learning communities, each with two universal/flexible laboratory spaces

Standard classroom size of approximately 960 square feet Visual and performing arts facilities Science and technical laboratories Renovation of existing media center Physical education and athletic facilities Special needs classroom facilities Fire alarms, communications, and technology facilities Cafeteria and food service facilities Landscaping, site utilities, and site improvements

Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

The project site is bound by single-family residences on the north, Myrtle Avenue on the east, Houghton Park on the south, and Atlantic Avenue on the west. The area surrounding the project site is primarily developed with residential uses. Single-family residences are located to the north, east, south, and west of the project site, with some multi-family residential uses located west of the project site. Additionally, some commercial land uses are located northwest of the project site at the intersection of Atlantic Avenue and Artesia Boulevard. Houghton Park, located directly adjacent to the southern boundary of the project site, includes 26.4 acres consisting of open grassy areas, a baseball field, a basketball court, community center, picnic area, playground, soccer and softball fields, tennis courts, and a volleyball court.

Responsible/Trustee Agencies:

Division of the State Architect State of California, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board State of California, Department of Toxic Substances Control


Reviewing Agencies:

City of Long Beach Department of Planning City of Los Beach Fire Department


Organization of Environmental Analysis Sections I through XXVIII of the Initial Study Checklist below provide a discussion of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. The evaluation of environmental impacts follows the questions provided in the Initial Study Checklist provided in the CEQA Guidelines 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 Initial Study 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 proposed project, or programs or procedures that are part of the proposed project, are considerations in making this determination. Such components are not considered mitigation measures because they are part of this proposed project.

A less than significant impact after mitigation incorporated 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 potentially significant impact could 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 proposed project (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 proposed Project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a Project-specific screening analysis). All answers must take into consideration the whole action involved for both short-term construction and long-term operational activities, including activities which would occur off-site, and activities which would result in indirect or direct impacts. References and citations have been incorporated into the Initial Study 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.


Po

ten

tial

ly S

ign

ific

ant

Imp

act

Les

s th

an S

ign

ific

ant

Imp

act

Aft

er M

itig

atio

n

Inco

rpo

rate

d

Les

s T

han

Sig

nif

ican

t Im

pac

t

No

Imp

act

I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:

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

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

X

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

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

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

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

X

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

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

X

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

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

X


Po

ten

tial

ly S

ign

ific

ant

Imp

act

Les

s th

an S

ign

ific

ant

Imp

act

Aft

er M

itig

atio

n

Inco

rpo

rate

d

Les

s T

han

Sig

nif

ican

t Im

pac

t

No

Imp

act

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

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

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

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

X

d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X

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

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:

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

X

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

X

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

X

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

X

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

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

X


Po

ten

tial

ly S

ign

ific

ant

Imp

act

Les

s th

an S

ign

ific

ant

Imp

act

Aft

er M

itig

atio

n

Inco

rpo

rate

d

Les

s T

han

Sig

nif

ican

t Im

pac

t

No

Imp

act

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:

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

X

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

X

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

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

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:

a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

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

X

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X

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

iv) Landslides? X

b. Result in substantial soil erosion, loss of topsoil, or changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?

X

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

X

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

X

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

X


Po

ten

tial

ly S

ign

ific

ant

Imp

act

Les

s th

an S

ign

ific

ant

Imp

act

Aft

er M

itig

atio

n

Inco

rpo

rate

d

Les

s T

han

Sig

nif

ican

t Im

pac

t

No

Imp

act

VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project:

a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impacts on the environment? X

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

VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project:

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

X

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

X

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

X

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

X

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

X

f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

X

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

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

X

IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:

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


Po

ten

tial

ly S

ign

ific

ant

Imp

act

Les

s th

an S

ign

ific

ant

Imp

act

Aft

er M

itig

atio

n

Inco

rpo

rate

d

Les

s T

han

Sig

nif

ican

t Im

pac

t

No

Imp

act

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

X

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

X

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

X

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?

X

f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X

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

X

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

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

X

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

X. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:

a. Physically divide an established community? X

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

X

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


Po

ten

tial

ly S

ign

ific

ant

Imp

act

Les

s th

an S

ign

ific

ant

Imp

act

Aft

er M

itig

atio

n

Inco

rpo

rate

d

Les

s T

han

Sig

nif

ican

t Im

pac

t

No

Imp

act

XI. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:

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? X

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

X

XII. NOISE. Would the project result in:

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

X

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

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

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

X

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

X

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

X

XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:

a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

X

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

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


Po

ten

tial

ly S

ign

ific

ant

Imp

act

Les

s th

an S

ign

ific

ant

Imp

act

Aft

er M

itig

atio

n

Inco

rpo

rate

d

Les

s T

han

Sig

nif

ican

t Im

pac

t

No

Imp

act

XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES.

a. 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:

i) Fire protection? X

ii) Police protection? X

iii) Schools? X

iv) Parks? X

v) Other public facilities? X

XV. RECREATION.

a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

X

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

X

XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:

a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

X

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

X

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

X


Po

ten

tial

ly S

ign

ific

ant

Imp

act

Les

s th

an S

ign

ific

ant

Imp

act

Aft

er M

itig

atio

n

Inco

rpo

rate

d

Les

s T

han

Sig

nif

ican

t Im

pac

t

No

Imp

act

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

X

e. Result in inadequate emergency access? X

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

X

XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:

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

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

X

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

X

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

X

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

X

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

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

XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.

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

X


Po

ten

tial

ly S

ign

ific

ant

Imp

act

Les

s th

an S

ign

ific

ant

Imp

act

Aft

er M

itig

atio

n

Inco

rpo

rate

d

Les

s T

han

Sig

nif

ican

t Im

pac

t

No

Imp

act

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

X

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

X


I. AESTHETICS

Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

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). The City of Long Beach General Plan does not provide a listing of City-designated scenic vistas.2 Potential scenic vistas in Long Beach include views along the coastline, mountain vistas, and other scenic features of the region that are a significant visual resource for residents and commercial uses. The project site is relatively flat and is within an area containing primarily residential and commercial uses. Views from the project site and surrounding area do not include any potential scenic vistas. The proposed project would modernize and renovate several of the existing one- to three-story buildings on the Jordan High School campus. In addition, the proposed project would demolish approximately 10 one- to two-story buildings, and would construct approximately 9 new one- to two- story buildings. Generally, the buildings constructed with the proposed project would be of a similar height and scale as the existing buildings on the project site. However, the one-story buildings located near the northern property line would be replaced with new two-story buildings. As such, the proposed project would result in a change of south-facing views from the single-family residential back yard areas to the north. However, there are no existing scenic vistas in the project vicinity and the proposed project would not affect views of scenic vistas on- or off-site. Less than significant impacts would occur to scenic vistas, and no further study of this issue is required.

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

Less Than Significant Impact. There are no eligible or officially designated state scenic highways located near the project site. The nearest eligible state scenic highway is State Route 1 (SR 1, Pacific Coast Highway). The eligible portion of SR 1 begins at Interstate 5 (I-5) in Capistrano Beach in Orange County and travels approximately 37 miles north to Lakewood Boulevard (State Route 19) in Long Beach.3 This eligible state scenic highway is located approximately six miles southwest of the project site. The City of Long Beach General Plan includes a Scenic Routes Element, which identifies Lakewood Boulevard as a recommended scenic route. The nearest portion of Lakewood Boulevard to the project site is located approximately 2.3 miles to the east, and no other City-designated scenic routes are located near the project site. The proposed project may require tree removal during construction, none of which are located along Atlantic Avenue. No buildings on the project site have been found to be eligible as a historic resource. The proposed project would not result in damage to a scenic resource within a state scenic highway. Less than significant impacts would occur to scenic resources, and no further study of this issue is required.

2 City of Long Beach, Open Space and Recreation Element of the General Plan, October 2002. 3 California Department of Transportation, Scenic Highway Program, Eligible and Officially Designated Routes,

February 3, 2013, Available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/cahisys.htm, Accessed: March 20, 2013.


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

Less Than Significant Impact After Mitigation Incorporated. The visual character of the project site and area are related to the quality of streetscape, buildings, or other man-made or natural features, that define an area. The project area primarily consists of modest residential and commercial uses. Houghton Park, located directly south of the project site, includes various types of vegetation and numerous mature trees. The project site currently consists of a high school with characteristics typical of an institutional facility. Although the campus includes buildings that were originally constructed in the 1930s and 1940s, the project site does not contain any unique or natural qualities or other features considered to be a potential aesthetic resource.

The proposed project would include the renovation/interior remodeling, demolition, and new construction of several buildings. The new buildings constructed would be of a similar height and scale, and none of the new buildings would be taller than two stories. The proposed project would not conflict with the character of the site or surrounding community. However, the configuration of the new one- and two-story buildings would have a shorter setback length to the northern property line than currently exists. Nonetheless, the placement and height of the proposed buildings would not result in substantial new shading and shadows to be cast on adjacent residential properties as compared to existing conditions.

The construction of one- to two-story buildings located near the northern property line adjacent to single-family residential uses may potentially be visible from these residential uses. In addition, residences located east of the project site along Myrtle Avenue may have a view of construction activities. Because of the potential for direct views of construction activities on the project site from adjacent residential uses, and the temporary visual intrusion this may create for the residential uses, the implementation of mitigation measures may be required. This issue will be further studied in the EIR.

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

Less Than Significant Impact After Mitigation Incorporated. The exterior finish of the new buildings constructed under the proposed project would not include any highly reflective surfaces aside from the standard glass windows. The project site is currently developed with the existing high school, which contains general nighttime building lighting, security lighting, and landscape lighting. The proposed new buildings 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. Once the track and football field, located in the central/southeastern portion of the project site, is reestablished after the completion of construction, a similar amount and intensity of lighting would be installed. No new sources of lighting or a higher intensity of lighting is proposed with the project. However, the minor reconfiguration of the track and football field area of the project site could result in lighting that is closer to residential properties, which may require the implementation of mitigation measures. This issue will be further studied in the EIR.


II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES

Would the project:

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

No Impact. The proposed project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance 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.4 No farmland is located within the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, no impacts to the conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use would occur, and no further study of this issue is required.

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

No Impact. The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly referred to as the Williamson Act, enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use. Currently, the only land in Los Angeles County under a Williamson Act contract is located on Santa Catalina Island, approximately 34 miles southwest of the project site.5 Therefore, the proposed project would conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. No impacts would occur, and no further study of this issue is required.

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

No Impact. The 26.9-acre project site is currently designated as Land Use District (LUD) 10, Institutional and School District under the general plan, and is developed with school facilities.6 Additionally, the project site is zoned I (Institutional) under the zoning code.7 No portion of the project site is zoned for or developed as forest land or timberland as defined in Pub. Res. Code Section 12220(g) and Government Code Section 4526, respectively.8 The proposed project would be compatible with the existing uses in the surrounding area. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning or cause rezoning of forest land or timberland. No impacts would occur, and no further study of this issue is required.

4 California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and

Monitoring Program, Important Farmland in California Map, 2008. Available online at: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/statewide/2008/fmmp2008_08_11.pdf, accessed March 4, 2013.

5 California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Williamson Act Program, Williamson Act Maps in PDF Format, Los Angeles County Williamson Act FY 2011/2012 Map, website: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/LA_11_12_WA.pdf, accessed March 4, 2013.

6 City of Long Beach Department of Planning, Land Use Element of the Long Beach General Plan, April 1997. Available online at: http://www.lbds.info/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=2815, accessed March 4, 2013.

7 City of Long Beach Department of Planning, Zoning Map, Quadrant 29, August 2009. Available online at: http://www.longbeach.gov/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=11078, accessed March 4, 2013.

8 Ibid.


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

No Impact. The project site is currently developed with school facilities. No portion of the project site or surrounding area is zoned or developed for a forest land use.9 Therefore, the proposed project would not result in loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No impact would occur, and no further study of this issue is required.

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

No Impact. The project site and adjacent properties are designated as “Urban and Built-Up Land”; no portion of the project site or surrounding area is identified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance.10 Additionally, no forest lands exist on or adjacent to the project site. The proposed project involves the modernization of the existing high school campus through the construction of new buildings and renovation of existing buildings. Therefore, the proposed project would not change the existing environment resulting in the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or forest land to non-forest use. No impacts to farmland or forest land would occur, and no further study of this issue is required.

III. AIR QUALITY

Would the project:

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan (e.g., the SCAQMD Plan or Congestion Management Plan)?

Potentially Significant Impact. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) monitors air quality within the project area and the South Coast Air Basin, which includes Orange County and portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. The South Coast Air Basin is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west; the San Gabriel, San Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east; and the San Diego County line to the south.

Air quality plans describe air pollution control strategies to be implemented by a city, county, or regional air district. The primary purpose of an air quality plan is to bring an area that does not attain federal and state air quality standards into compliance with those standards pursuant to the requirements of the Clean Air Act and California Clean Air Act. The South Coast Air Basin is currently designated as extreme nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone (O3) National Ambient Air Quality Standard and nonattainment for the particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than 10 microns (PM10) and particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5). The applicable Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the proposed project site is prepared by SCAQMD in partnership with the California Air Resources Board (CARB), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).

9 Ibid. 10 California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and

Monitoring Program, Important Farmland in California Map, 2008. Available online at: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/statewide/2008/fmmp2008_08_11.pdf, accessed March 4, 2013.


The most recent AQMP was adopted by the SCAQMD in December 2012.11 The 2012 AQMP is the blueprint for how the region will meet and maintain state and federal air quality standards. The 2012 AQMP identifies control measures required to achieve attainment of the federal 24-hour standard for PM2.5 by 2014 in the South Coast Air Basin. The 2012 AQMP also provides updates on progress towards meeting the 8-hour O3 standard by 2023 and an attainment demonstration for the revoked 1-hour O3 standard.

The full buildout would include the renovation of approximately 213,000 square feet of existing building space, and the construction of approximately 240,000 square feet of new building space. At full buildout, the project site would consist of approximately 453,000 square feet of total building space (a net increase of approximately 89,697 square feet). The objectives of the proposed project are to provide upgraded and expanded instructional technology, provide upgraded classrooms, libraries, restrooms, plumbing and roofs consistent with educational program requirements, improve energy and water efficiency, and meet CHPS criteria. While the proposed project would result in a net increase in square footage, there is not anticipated to be an increase in student enrollment or capacity.

Nonetheless, technical analysis is needed to confirm that short-term construction emissions and long-term operational emissions would not exceed the emissions budgeted for the project site in the AQMP, and that the proposed project would not conflict or obstruct implementation of the AQMP. A detailed technical analysis of air quality impacts will be further studied in the EIR.

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

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 site preparation activities. The proposed project would not likely result in long-term air quality impacts from operation-related activities, as the proposed project would not result in an increase to future enrollment, and would, therefore, not create new vehicle trips. A detailed technical analysis of construction air quality impacts will be further studied in the EIR.

11 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan, December 2012.


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

Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project may potentially result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutant for which the South Coast Air Basin is in nonattainment. The South Coast Air Basin is in nonattainment for O3, PM10, PM2.5, and carbon monoxide (CO).12 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 nonattainment area and compound the issue. A detailed technical analysis of cumulative air quality impacts will be further studied in the EIR.

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

Potentially Significant Impact. Some members of the population are especially sensitive to air pollutant emissions and should be given special consideration when evaluating air quality impacts from projects. These people include children, older adults, persons with preexisting respiratory or cardiovascular illness, and athletes and others who engage in frequent exercise. Structures that house these persons or places where they gather are defined as sensitive receptors by the SCAQMD. According to the SCAQMD, sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, child care centers, athletic facilities, long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. Therefore, the high school is also considered a sensitive receptor to surrounding emissions sources.

The nearest off-site sensitive receptors are single-family residences located to the north and directly adjacent to the project site. Residential land uses are located to the west and east of the project site at various distances. The residential sensitive receptors represent the nearest land uses with the potential to be impacted as a result of the proposed project.

The greatest potential for toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions would be related to diesel particulate matter (diesel PM) emissions associated with heavy-duty construction equipment operations. According to the SCAQMD methodology, health effects from carcinogenic TACs are usually described in terms of individual cancer risk, which is based on a 70-year lifetime exposure to TACs. The potential for individual receptors to be exposed to TAC emissions and other unhealthful pollutant concentrations during construction and operation will be further studied in the EIR.

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

Less Than Significant Impact. The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depend on numerous factors, including the nature, frequency, and intensity of the source; wind speed and direction; and the presence of sensitive receptors. While offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they still can be very unpleasant, leading to considerable distress and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and regulatory agencies.

12 SCAQMD. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. November 1993. p. 6.


Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include exhaust from diesel construction equipment. However, because of the temporary nature of these emissions and the highly diffusive properties of diesel exhaust, nearby receptors would not be affected by diesel exhaust odors associated with project construction. The proposed project would utilize typical construction techniques, and the odors would be typical of most construction sites and temporary in nature.

Operation of the proposed project would not add any new odor sources. The land uses associated with the proposed project would primarily be educational, recreational or commercial (e.g., cafeteria). Minor sources of odors, such as exhaust from mobile sources and charbroilers associated with commercial uses, are not typically associated with numerous odor complaints but are known to have temporary, less concentrated odors. The project would not have any significant odor sources, and any odors generated would be similar to existing odors associated with operation of the high school. The surrounding land uses are primarily residential, and no significant odors would be anticipated from those sources. As a result, the proposed project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The impact would be less than significant, and no further study of this issue is required.

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Would the project:

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

Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area and is completely developed with school facilities. Landscaping on the project site is limited to ornamental and street trees and does not include any native vegetation. As such, candidate and special status species are not expected to occur on the project site. However, nesting birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. As discussed in Section 1, Project Description, construction would comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which requires that nesting bird surveys be conducted prior to the start of vegetation clearance activities should they occur during nesting bird season (generally February 15 through September 15). In compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act requirements, should vegetation clearance occur during the nesting bird season, a qualified biologist would conduct a nest survey within one week of the start of these activities to ensure that no active nests would be lost. If an active nest is located, then the nest should be flagged and construction within an appropriate distance of the nest should be postponed until the biologist has confirmed that the nest is no longer active. Compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act would ensure a less than significant impact to protected species, and no further study of this issue is required.


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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

No Impact. The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. The project site is located in an urbanized area and is completely developed with school facilities. The project site is not located within an area designated by the County of Los Angeles as being a Significant Ecological Area.13 Therefore, no impacts to sensitive habitats would occur with implementation of the proposed project, and no further study of this issue is required.

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

No Impact. The 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 fully developed and located in an urban setting; it does not contain any wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.14 The nearest body of water is the Los Angeles River, located approximately 0.3 miles west of the project site. No impact to wetlands would occur, and no further study of this issue is required.

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/breeding sites?

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 native wildlife nursery sites. The project site is an existing school, located in an urban environment. The project site does not contain any watercourse, greenbelt, or open space for wildlife movement. The proposed project may require removal of landscape trees from the project site, which could potentially impact nesting bird species. However, as discussed in Section IV(a) above, the proposed project would comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act during construction. Compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act would ensure a less than significant impact to migratory wildlife species, and no further study of this issue is required.

13 Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning, County of Los Angeles General Plan, Special

Management Areas Map, November 1980, available online at: http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/project/gp_web80-special-management-areas-map-4.pdf, accessed March 18, 2013.

14 United States Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetland Inventory, Wetlands Online Mapper, website: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Wetlands-Mapper.html, accessed March 18, 2013.


e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance (e.g., oak trees or California walnut woodlands)?

No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The City of Long Beach Department of Public Works regulates the installation of trees along sidewalks and removal of trees and other vegetation in public areas. The proposed project may result in the removal of some existing on-site trees. None of these plant species are protected by local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The proposed project would be landscaped in accordance with the tree planting specifications of the City. As such, no impacts to local policies protecting biological resources would occur, and no further study of this issue is required.

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

No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state Habitat Conservation Plan as none apply to the project site. No impacts related to Habitat or Natural Community Conservation Plans would occur, and no further study of this issue is required.

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES

Would the project:

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5?

No Impact. An Historic Resources Assessment Report was prepared for the proposed project in March 2013, which is included as Appendix A of this Initial Study. The historical resources investigation included a records search and review of local histories to determine the following:

If known historical resources have previously been recorded within a 0.25-mile radius of the project site;

If the project site has been systematically surveyed by historians prior to the initiation of the study; and/or

Whether there is other information that would indicate whether or not the project site and surrounding area is historically sensitive or may pose indirect impacts to adjacent historic resources.

For purposes of this investigation, the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historic Places, California Historic Resources Inventory, and California Points of Historical Interest, California Historical Landmarks were consulted to determine previously identified historical resources within a one-mile radius of the project site. Record search results indicated that there are no previously recorded historic resources within a 0.25-mile radius of the project site.


Several on-site structures were assessed for historic significance due to their ages, including the New Administration Building constructed in 1956, two 1933 classroom buildings, the Cafeteria Building constructed between 1953 and 1954, the Bleacher Building constructed in 1948, the Natatorium Building constructed between 1949 and 1950, the Auditorium Building constructed between 1950 and 1951, the Music Building constructed in 1950, four classroom buildings constructed between 1953 and 1963, and the Auto Shop constructed in 1954.

These structures were assessed under the following criteria:

National Register Criterion A: [The resource] is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.

National Register Criterion B: [The resource] is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.

National Register Criterion C: [The resource] embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.

National Register Criterion D: [The resource] yields, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory of history.

California Register Criterion 1: [The resource] is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.

California Register Criterion 2: [The resource] is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.

California Register Criterion 3: [The resource] embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.

California Register Criterion 4: [The resource] has yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Los Angeles Historic Cultural Monument Criterion: The proposed site, building, or structure is identified with historic personages or with important events in the main currents of national, state, or local history.

Although originally constructed in the 1930s, the existing campus was largely built during the postwar years (1940s through 1950s) as a response to the increase in the population of the City of Long Beach. While the project site is historically associated with the broad patterns of the City’s economic, social, and cultural history, the development of Jordan High School was part of the general population growth in southern California and is not individually significant for its association with postwar


demographic and population increases. There are no events associated with this property that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of cultural, political, economic, or social history of the nation, state, or city. Therefore, the project site does not appear eligible for the National Register under Criterion A, or the California Register under Criterion 1.

Jordan High School is not identified with historic personages or events in the main currents of national, state, or local history. Therefore, the project site does not appear to satisfy National Register Criterion B, California Register Criterion 2, or Los Angeles Cultural Monument Criterion for eligibility related to a historic personage or event.

The two 1930s classroom buildings have poor integrity and are not significant for their association with the post-earthquake period revival style school campuses in the LBUSD. Historically significant period revival campuses in the LBUSD tend to have a high number of contributing period revival buildings and, in general, the campuses retain their original plan and layout. Historically significant period revival buildings the LBUSD tend to be located on the primary street-fronting elevations of the campus and serve as the aesthetic identity of their campus. The two 1930s classroom buildings represent highly altered period revival buildings, are not prominently positioned in the campus plan, and do not visually function as significant buildings within the campus aesthetic identity.

The postwar school buildings on the project site are utilitarian in design and not associated with any specific architectural style, although they do include some modern architectural elements, such as aluminum frame windows and doors and orthogonal geometry. The use of modern detailing appears mostly cosmetic and was the result of modern materials being the dominant building materials available for contractors and architects during the postwar era. Furthermore, while the architect, Kenneth Wing, did attempt to add the classical symmetry of new formalism style to the exteriors of some postwar buildings on campus, it is likely that he was working under a program-based budget and designed the facades as surface ornamentation to achieve the look of current trends within modern architecture and within the confines of a small budget. While the Wing’s school building designs made symbolic gestures to postwar-era modernism, the school buildings are not directly connected to new formalism or any other variant of postwar modern architecture.

Kenneth Wing was a significant architect for his local contribution to the field of architecture in the City of Long Beach and Los Angeles County. His career spanned two distinct architectural movements, including Moderne and the Modern Movement in Architecture. Therefore, while Kenneth Wing was a prominent architect, his work at Jordan High School, with its simple massing, standardized program, and stucco finish, is highly typical and ubiquitous to postwar high schools in southern California. Therefore, the project site does not appear eligible for listing under either National Register Criterion C or California Register Criterion 3.

The project site is not likely to yield any information important to prehistory or history. Therefore, the project site would not be eligible for listing under either National Register Criterion D or California Register Criterion 4.


In conclusion, Jordan High School does not possess sufficient historical or architectural significance for listing under any of the applicable federal, state, or local eligibility criteria. The property does not exemplify the broad patterns of economic and development history in the City of Long Beach or the LBUSD. Jordan High School is not identified with historic personages or with important events. As it is not an exceptional or architecturally important example of the period revival or postwar modern styles, and is not a good example of Kenneth Wing’s architecture, Jordan High School does not appear eligible for listing in the national or state registers as an exceptional, distinctive, outstanding, or singular example of its type or style. As such, through the historic resources investigation, Jordan High School has been assigned a California Historic Resources Status Code of 6Z and is “found ineligible for the National Register, California Register, or Local designations through survey evaluation.” Therefore, no impacts to historic resources would occur with implementation of the proposed project, and no further study of this issue is required.

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5?

Less Than Significant Impact. There are no known archaeological resources existing on the project site. The project site is completely developed and, thus, archaeological resources are not expected to be encountered during construction activities. However, in the event that subsurface archaeological resources are discovered during the course of grading and/or excavation, they would be handled pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. These regulations require that all development cease in the area of the discovery until LBUSD is contacted and agrees upon a qualified archaeologist to be brought onto the project site to properly assess the resources and make recommendations for their disposition. Adherence to existing regulations would ensure that impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant, and no further study of this issue is required.

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

Less Than Significant Impact. There are no known paleontological resources on the project site. The project site is completely developed; as such, paleontological resources are not expected to be encountered during construction of the proposed project. However, in the event that paleontological resources are discovered during the construction phase, they would be handled pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94 and 5097.98. These regulations require that all development is temporarily ceased in the area of discovery until LBUSD is contacted and agrees upon a qualified paleontologist to be brought onto the project site to properly assess the resources and make recommendations for their disposition. Adherence to existing regulations would ensure that impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant, and no further study of this issue is required.

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

Less Than Significant Impact. No formal cemeteries or other places of human internment are known to exist within the project site. Human remains are not


expected to be encountered during construction. Any disposition of discovered remains at the project site would occur in accordance with the procedures and requirements set forth in the California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94 and 5097.98. These code provisions require notification of the County Coroner and the Native American Heritage Commission. If the remains are found to be Native American, the County Coroner and Native American Heritage Commission must notify those persons believed to be the most likely descended from the deceased Native American for appropriate disposition of the remains. Excavation or disturbance may continue in other areas of the project site that are not reasonably suspected to overlie potential adjacent remains. With the implementation of the precautionary guidelines mentioned above, potential impacts on human remains would be less than significant, and no further study of this issue is required.

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

The geology and soils analysis is based upon the following technical reports:

Draft Geotechnical and Geological Engineering Investigation Report, prepared by Koury Geotechnical Services, Inc. on July 27, 2012; and

Phase 1, North Campus Geotechnical and Geological Engineering Investigation Report, prepared by Koury Geotechnical Services, Inc. on April 15, 2013.

These reports are included as Appendix B of this Initial Study.

Would the project:

a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

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

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is located in the seismically active region of southern California and has the potential to be subjected to ground shaking hazards associated with earthquake events on active faults throughout the region. However, the project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The nearest Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone is the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone, located approximately 2.4 miles southwest of the project site. No evidence of active or potentially active faulting was observed on the project site during the geotechnical investigation (see Appendix B). As such, surface rupture is not considered to a potential hazard to the project site. Impacts would be less than significant, and no further study of this issue is required.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section VI(a)(i) above, the Newport-Inglewood Fault is located approximately 2.4 miles southwest of the project site. Additionally, the Puente Hills Fault is located approximately 4 miles


northeast of the project site. Due to the proximity of these faults, seismic ground shaking effects at the project site may occur during a strong earthquake along these faults. However, the proposed project would be designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations in the Geotechnical and Geological Engineering Investigation Reports prepared for the proposed project (see Appendix B). Additionally, construction activities would adhere to the latest version of the California Building Code, the Uniform Building Code, and all other applicable federal, state, and local codes relative to seismic criteria. Compliance with the recommendations in the geotechnical reports and with existing regulations would ensure that impacts related to seismic ground shaking would be less than significant, and no further study of this issue is required.

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in an area identified as a generalized liquefaction susceptibility zone on the State of California Seismic Hazard Zones Map. Due to the depth of historic groundwater and the soil types underlying the project site, the potential for liquefaction at the project site is considered to be moderate to high. Based on the geotechnical investigation conducted at the project site, it is estimated that the loose to medium dense sandy silt, silty sand, and sand below the groundwater to approximately 55 to 60 feet below ground surface are subject to liquefaction in the event of a major earthquake on a nearby fault. Differential settlement at the project site is expected to be on the order of 2 to 5 inches in the northern portion of the project site and 1 to 2 inches in the rest of the project site.

As discussed in Section VI(a)(ii) above, the proposed project would be designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations in the geotechnical investigation and geological engineering reports, the latest version of the California Building Code, the Uniform Building Code, and all other applicable federal, state, and local codes. The geotechnical investigation and geological engineering report for the northern portion of the campus, which includes the areas that are expected to experience the highest degree of seismic settlement due to liquefaction during an earthquake, recommends ground improvement measures to be implemented in conjunction with building foundations. In accordance with recommendations made in the geotechnical report, the ground improvement used in the northern portion of the project site would include the installation of stone columns. The stone columns would be installed in Phases 1B, 1C, and 2A of the proposed project, and would be designed to limit seismic settlement to no more than one inch with differential settlement of less than 0.75 inches within the upper 35 feet and static settlement no greater than 0.5 inches. Compliance with the recommendations in the geotechnical investigation and geological engineering reports, including the installation of stone columns to limit seismic settlement, and with existing regulations would ensure that impacts from liquefaction would be less than significant, and no further study of this issue is required.

iv) Landslides?

No Impact. The project site is not located within an area identified as a Landslide Hazard Zone on the State of California Seismic Hazard Zones Map containing the project site. Additionally, no evidence for landsliding was


observed on or in the vicinity of the project site during the geotechnical investigation. Due to lack of significant topographic variations at the project site, landslides are not considered to be a potential hazard to the project site. Therefore, no impacts from landslides would occur, and no further study of this issue is required.

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

Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would expose soil for a limited time, allowing for possible erosion. During construction, transport of sediments from the project site by storm water runoff and winds would be prevented through the use of appropriate Best Management Practices. The proposed project would be required to implement dust control measures pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 403. Additionally, the construction contractor would develop and implement an erosion control plan and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction activities, in compliance with the latest National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements for storm water discharges. Implementation of the required construction Best Management Practices would ensure that soil erosion impacts would be less than significant during construction. During project operation, no large areas of exposed soils subject to erosion would be created or affected. Therefore, there would be no long-term impact to erosion and loss of topsoil. No further study of this issue is required.

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

Less Than Significant Impact. The project site and surrounding areas are relatively flat with no significant descending slopes. The closest descending slope is approximately 1,500 feet west of the project site at the Los Angeles River. Due to the upper surface of liquefaction at a depth of approximately 23 feet, and discontinuity of the liquefiable layers, the potential for lateral spreading at the project site is considered low. Additionally, the slopes vary gently to the east in the direction opposite the Los Angeles River. The proposed project would be designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations in the geotechnical investigation and geological engineering reports, the latest version of the California Building Code, the Uniform Building Code, and all other applicable federal, state, and local codes. Compliance with the recommendations in the geotechnical investigation and geological engineering reports and with existing regulations would ensure that impacts from unstable soils would be less than significant, and no further study of this issue is required.

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

Less Than Significant Impact. The soils encountered into the upper 5 feet of the borings taken during the geotechnical investigation at the project site generally consist of silty sand and sandy silt. This material generally has a low susceptibility to expansion. The proposed project would be designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations in the geotechnical investigation and geological engineering reports, the latest version of the California Building Code, the Uniform Building Code, and all other applicable federal, state, and local codes. Compliance


with the recommendations in the geotechnical investigation and geological engineering reports and with existing regulations would ensure that impacts from soil expansion would be less than significant, and no further study of this issue is required.

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

No Impact. The project site is connected to the municipal sewer and storm drains, and septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would not be used. Therefore, no impact would occur, and no further study of this issue is required.

VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may

have a significant impact on the environment?

Potentially Significant Impact. The construction of the proposed project would generate greenhouse gas emissions. Construction-related emissions would be generated from off-road construction equipment and on-road vehicle exhaust. However, operational emissions would be minimal because the proposed project does not include an increase in student enrollment, and therefore, vehicle trips to and from the project site would be similar to existing conditions. The construction of the proposed project could result in a potentially significant impact related to greenhouse gas emissions. This issue would be studied further in the EIR.

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

Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project would generate greenhouse gas emissions during construction. In addition to analyzing impacts related to such emissions, the EIR will also include an analysis of the project’s compliance with applicable plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.

VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Would the project:

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

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. Construction of the proposed project would involve the use of those hazardous materials that are typically necessary for construction (i.e., paints, building materials, cleaners, fuel for construction equipment, etc.). However, the transport, use, and disposal of construction-related hazardous materials would occur in conformance with all applicable regulations governing such activities. The types of hazardous materials associated with routine, day-to-day operation of the proposed project would include


landscaping chemicals that would be used in quantities typical for landscaped school grounds, and typical cleaning solvents. 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 continues to be stored, handled, and disposed of in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws that protect public safety. As such, impacts to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous material would be less than significant, and no further study of this issue is required.

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

Less Than Significant Impact. Due to the age of existing structures on the project site, several environmental assessments have been conducted to identify the potential for hazardous materials to be present on-site. A Hazardous and Non-Hazardous Materials Inspection Report was prepared for the proposed project in September 2012, and is included as Appendix C of this Initial Study. The purpose of this inspection was to identify the potential for the presence of materials regulated by the EPA and/or the state.15 These materials included asbestos, lead, polycholorinated biphenyls (PCBs), fluorescent light tubes containing mercury, and thermostats with liquid mercury control switches. It was determined through this inspection that the project site requires the removal of asbestos-containing materials, lead containing materials, PCB containing coatings, fluorescent tubes, mercury thermostats, and regulated refrigerants.16 These materials would be abated in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Abatement Specifications Report prepared for the proposed project, which is included as Appendix D of this Initial Study.

Additionally, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared in October 2011. This assessment identified five areas of concern on the project site.17 A Preliminary Environmental Assessment (PEA) was performed from April 9 to June 20, 2012, in which soil environmental sampling was conducted in the five areas of concern. The Preliminary Environmental Assessment Sampling Results report was prepared at the request of the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to present the initial findings of the PEA.18

Soil sampling was performed to assess the potential impacts in shallow soils around the existing buildings from lead-based paint, organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) from termiticide application, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), metals, and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). During the PEA sampling process, it was determined that lead, soil gas, PCBs, and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs) did not pose a significant risk of exposure as these materials were either not detected during sampling, or were found to be below acceptable levels.19 Nonetheless, lead and PCBs would be abated in accordance with the Abatement Specifications report, as described above. The PEA concluded that elevated levels of OCPs would pose a

15 CF Environmental, Inc., Hazardous and Non-Hazardous Materials Inspection, March 21, 2012. 16 CF Environmental, Inc., Abatement Specifications, Hazardous and Non-Hazardous Material Abatement,

September 2012. 17 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment is summarized in Ninyo & Moore, Draft Removal Action

Workplan, Jordan High School, October 23, 2012. 18 Ninyo & Moore, Preliminary Environmental Assessment Sampling Results, July 23, 2012. 19 Ibid.


threat to public health or the environment. A PEA Equivalent was submitted to DTSC on August 23, 2012, which DTSC determined to be adequate on August 31, 2012.20 Subsequently, a Removal Action Workplan (RAW) was prepared for the project site outlining measures for the remediation of soils containing elevated levels of OCPs. The RAW was approved by DTSC on March 12, 2013.

The RAW includes a plan for conducting the removal action, a description of the on-site impact, and goals to be achieved by the removal action, as required by the California Health and Safety Code Section 25323.1.21 The RAW also includes site-specific Removal Action Objectives (RAOs) established to protect human health and the environment. The RAOs for the project site include:

Prevent potential exposure through ingestion, inhalation, or direct contact with the shallow soils containing elevated concentrations of OCPs that may pose risk to human health;

Protect human health and the environment by preventing generation and release of fugitive dust potentially containing elevated concentrations of OCPs into the ambient air in excess of SCAQMD requirements;

Minimize potential migration of elevated concentrations of OCPs from soils into air, surface water, or groundwater; and

Obtain a “no further action” (NFA) determination from DTSC for this site based upon the results of the removal action, which would be presented in a Removal Action Completion Report.

The goal of the removal action is for all significantly affected soil to be excavated, removed from the site, and treated and/or disposed of off-site. Specifically, the RAW focuses on the removal and disposal of OCP-affected soils to reduce the threat to human health, safety, and the environment, and to provide a permanent solution that reduces the toxicity, mobility, and volume of affected soil.

Following completion of removal and remediation activities, as part of the NFA decision, DTSC would certify that all necessary remedial actions have been completed in accordance with the approved RAW, and that, following implementation of the RAW, site conditions would not pose a significant risk to human health, safety, or the environment. The NFA determination from DTSC would be required before building construction could begin. Following implementation of the RAW and removal of the impacted soil in accordance with state and federal standards, and application of the procedures outlined in the Abatement Specifications report, impacts related to hazardous conditions at the site would be less than significant, and no further study of this issue is required.

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

Less Than Significant Impact. The project site, Jordan High School, is the only school located within one-quarter mile. As discussed in Section VIII(a) above, construction and operation of the proposed project would involve the limited use of

20 Department of Toxic Substances Control, Adequacy of Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Public

Comment, August 31, 2012. 21 Ninyo & Moore, Draft Removal Action Workplan, Jordan High School, October 23, 2012.


hazardous materials. The use of all hazardous materials during construction and operation of the proposed project would be in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations regarding storage, use, and disposal. Additionally, no new uses beyond those that currently exist on campus would occur. Compliance with existing regulations would ensure a less than significant impact, and no further study of this issue is required.

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

Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is listed as School Cleanup Site on DTSC’s Envirostor database in connection to the potential chemicals of concern discussed in Section VIII(b) above. However, as discussed previously, the proposed project includes application of the procedures outlined in the Abatement Specifications report and implementation of the RAW and removal of affected soils in accordance with state and federal standards. Following application of abatement procedures and implementation of the RAW, impacts would be less than significant, and no further study of this issue is required.

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

No Impact. The proposed project is not located within two miles of a public airport or airport land use plan. The nearest public airport is Long Beach Airport, located approximately 3.22 miles southeast of the project site. The project site is located outside of the Influence Area of the airport.22 As such, the proposed project would not create a safety hazard related to aviation operations for people residing or working in the project area. No impact would occur, and no further study of this issue is required.

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

No Impact. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip.23 Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a safe hazard related to operation of a private airstrip for people residing or working in the project area. No impact would occur, and no further study of this issue is required.

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

Less Than Significant Impact. Designated disaster routes near the project site include Artesia Boulevard and SR 91 to the north, and Atlantic Avenue and I-710 to

22 Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning, Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission,

Long Beach Municipal Airport, Airport Influence Area Map, May 13, 2003. Available online at: http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/project/aluc_airport-long-beach.pdf, accessed March 18, 2013.

23 AirNav, website: http://www.airnav.com/airports/, accessed March 18, 2013.


the west.24 Despite its proximity to theses designated disaster routes, the proposed project would not impede access to or from any of these routes. The proposed project would follow all federal Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) and California Occupational Safety & Health Administration (CalOSHA) requirements for construction and operation activities. The construction and operation of the proposed project would not interfere with any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no further study of this issue is required.

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

No Impact. The proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Houghton Park, located directly south of the project site, contains several trees. However, the quantity and density of the trees in the park would not pose a substantial fire risk, and the park is not considered wildland. Additionally, the project site and surrounding area is completely developed as an urban environment. No wildlands exist within or adjacent to the project site. Therefore, no impact from wildland fires would occur, and no further study of this issue is required.

IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Would the project:

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

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would include the demolition, renovation/interior remodeling, and new construction of buildings over approximately six phases. In addition, the track and football field, and other athletic fields would be renovated with the proposed project. 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. During construction, adherence to all applicable water quality requirements would be required. Implementation of these requirements, including preparation of a SWPPP, as well as obtaining a Stormwater Construction Activities General Permit and NPDES permit would ensure that impacts to water quality, during construction and operation would be less than significant, and no further study of this issue is required.

24 Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Disaster Route Maps by City, Cities of Long Beach &

Signal Hill map. Available online at: http://dpw.lacounty.gov/dsg/DisasterRoutes/map/Long%20Beach.pdf, accessed March 18, 2013.


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

Less Than Significant Impact. Groundwater beneath the project site is located at approximately 23 to 26 feet below ground surface (bgs).25 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 storm water runoff to infiltration areas and use permeable pavement where feasible, which would promote and increase the amount of recharge at the project site. Extensive grading and excavation would not be necessary with the proposed project, and groundwater would not be extracted during construction or operation of the proposed project. Less than significant impacts would occur, and no further study of this issue is required.

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?

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. Drainage patterns within the project area are well established resulting in low potential for drainage alteration in most areas. The LBUSD would comply with all applicable requirements regulating drainage improvements and grading as they relate to construction of on-site improvements that affect off-site drainage. A minimal amount of grading would be required during the construction of the proposed project. Less than significant impacts would occur, and no further study of this issue is required.

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

Less Than Significant Impact. 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 area. The LBUSD’s construction contractor would comply with all applicable requirements regulating drainage improvements and grading as they relate to construction of on-site improvements that affect drainage. A minimal amount of grading would be required during the construction of the proposed project. Compliance with existing regulations would ensure that that the

25 Koury Geotechnical Services, Inc., Draft Geotechnical and Geological Engineering Investigation Report, July

27, 2012.


proposed project would not adversely affect the local drainage system in a manner that would result in substantial flooding on- or off-site. Less than significant impacts would occur, and no further study of this issue is required.

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?

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water 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 proposed project would include the demolition, renovation/interior remodeling, and new construction of buildings over approximately six phases. In addition, the track and football field, and other athletic fields would be renovated with the proposed project. Ultimately, the proposed project would not increase the coverage of impervious surfaces. The proposed project would not generate substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Storm water quality would also be addressed through compliance with regulatory permit requirements and BMPs. Less than significant impacts would occur, and no further study of this issue is required.

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially degrade water quality. The project site consists of an existing school, and the capacity of the school site would not increase. Construction of the proposed project would include minimal grading and other construction activities that could cause deterioration of water quality. LBUSD’s construction contractor would comply with NPDES regulations, prepare a SWPPP, and incorporate construction BMPs into the proposed project. Compliance with these regulations and standards would ensure that impacts to surface water and groundwater water quality would be less than significant during construction and operation, and no further study of this issue is required.

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

No Impact. The project site is not located within a 100-year flood zone as shown on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map.26 The proposed project would renovate existing school buildings and construct several new school buildings. Housing is not a component of the proposed project. The proposed project would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area. No impact would occur, and no further study of this issue is required.


27, 2012.


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

No Impact. The project site is not located within a 100-year flood zone as shown on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map.27 As such, the structures included with the proposed project would not impede or redirect flood flows. No impact would occur, and no further study of this issue is required.

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

No Impact. 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 project site is not located within a 100-year flood zone as shown on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map.28 The Los Angeles River is located approximately 0.22 miles west of the project site, and is situated at a lower elevation than the project site. The project site is not located near a body of water that includes a levee or dam. No impacts would occur, and no further study of this issue is required.

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

No Impact. The project site is not located within a flood hazard area as shown on a flood hazard delineation map. The project site is located at an average mean sea level (amsl) elevation of approximately 55 feet, and there are no enclosed large bodies of water in the immediate vicinity of the project site.29 Therefore, tsunamis and seiches are not considered to be potential hazards to the project site. Additionally, the project site is relatively flat and is located outside of any landslide areas.30 The project site is located in an urbanized commercial and residential area, which is not adjacent to any hillside areas. As such, the proposed project would not be susceptible to mudflows. No impacts would occur, and no further study of this issue is required.

X. LAND USE AND PLANNING

Would the project:

a) Physically divide an established community?

No Impact. The proposed project involves modernization of the existing school campus through construction of new and renovation of existing facilities. Although the total square footage of structures would increase, the proposed project would not increase the capacity or enrollment of the school. Additionally, the proposed project would be located entirely within the existing boundaries of the Jordan High School campus. Therefore, the proposed project would physically divide and established community. No impacts would occur, and no further study of this issue is required.


27, 2012. 28 Ibid. 29 Ibid. 30 Ibid.


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

No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project. The project site is designated as Land Use District (LUD) 10, Institutional and School District under the general plan, and is developed with school facilities.31 Additionally, the project site is zoned I (Institutional) under the zoning code.32 The proposed project would implement the campus master plan, which involves modernization of the existing school campus through construction of new and renovation of existing structures. The proposed project would not include an expansion of uses. The proposed uses would be consistent with the current land use and zoning designations for the project site. Additionally, as discussed in Section 1, Project Description, the proposed project is identified in the FMP and is designated as a high priority project by the Internal Executive Committee. As such, implementation of the proposed project is designed to be consistent with the FMP and its goals. Therefore, no impacts would occur, and no further study of this issue is required.

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

No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. As discussed in Section IV(f) above, no such plans are applicable to the project site. No impact would occur, and no further study of this issue is required.

XI. MINERAL RESOURCES

Would the project:

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?

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 uses would not changes as a result of the proposed project. According to the County of Los Angeles General Plan, there are no known mineral resources underlying the project site.33 No impacts would occur, and no further study of this issue is required.

31 City of Long Beach Department of Planning, Land Use Element of the Long Beach General Plan, April 1997.

Available online at: http://www.lbds.info/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=2815, accessed March 4, 2013.

32 City of Long Beach Department of Planning, Zoning Map, Quadrant 29, August 2009. Available online at: http://www.longbeach.gov/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=11078, accessed March 4, 2013.

33 Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning, Los Angeles County General Plan, Special Management Areas Map, November 1980. Available online at: http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/project/gp_web80-special-management-areas-map-4.pdf, accessed March 4, 2013.


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

No Impact. 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. As discussed previously, the project site is located within an urbanized area and is currently developed with school facilities. The project site is not delineated as a locally-importance mineral resource recovery site on any land use plans, including the County of Los Angeles General Plan and the Land Use Element of the City of Long Beach General Plan.34,35 Therefore, no impacts would occur, and no further study of this issue is required.

XII. NOISE

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

Potentially Significant Impact. Project construction could potentially expose nearby sensitive uses (such as on-site students or adjacent residences) to noise levels above established noise standards. The proposed 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 Long Beach 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 site will be completed as part of the EIR.

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

Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project may result in excessive exposure of persons to, or generation of, groundborne vibration or noise levels. Demolition activities could result in minor amounts of groundborne vibration at limited durations. In addition, the construction of the proposed project would include the installation of numerous stone columns into the ground using a drill, which could potentially cause significant vibration impacts at close distances. Typical construction equipment, such as bulldozers, loaded trucks and jackhammers would generate certain levels of groundborne vibration during construction activities at short distances from the source. 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 impacts during project operation will not be further evaluated in the EIR.

34 Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning, Los Angeles County General Plan, Special

Management Areas Map, November 1980. Available online at: http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/project/gp_web80-special-management-areas-map-4.pdf, accessed March 4, 2013.

35 City of Long Beach Department of Planning, Land Use Element of the Long Beach General Plan, April 1997. Available online at: http://www.lbds.info/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=2815, accessed March 4, 2013.


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

Less Than Significant Impact. Operation of the proposed project does not propose new or additional capacity, an increase in student enrollment, or significant changes in the layout of the campus that would result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels. Ambient noise measurements were taken on-site and at nearby locations using a Larson Davis 824, Type 1 noise meter on March 7 and 12, 2013 to ascertain the existing ambient daytime noise levels including existing campus noise at nearby sensitive receptors. The existing environment is very urban with multiple emergency vehicle pass-bys that generate maximum noise levels of up to 76 dBA (a-weighted decibel) at nearby residences. Noise associated with HVAC, student conversation and class bells would not exceed City Noise Ordinance standards at the nearest residential properties. Further, the replacement of the existing campus buildings with new buildings and newer HVAC equipment is likely to reduce operational noise associated with HVAC equipment and building maintenance. Therefore, the operational impact would be less than significant, and no further study of this issue is required.

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

Potentially Significant Impact. As described above, construction of the proposed 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 single-family residences located adjacent to the northern boundary of the project site. 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.

Operational noise associated with student and faculty use of the project site would not be expected to change substantially as a result of the proposed project. No expansion of facility uses or programs would occur as a result of the proposed project and no increases to student enrollment are proposed. As such, no additional analysis regarding operational noise impacts will be included in the EIR.

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

No Impact. The closest airports to the project site, Long Beach Airport and Compton/Woodley Airport, are located over three miles from the project site. The project site is not located within the boundaries of an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport. Therefore, no impacts would occur, and no further study of this issue is required.

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

No Impact. The proposed project would not expose people residing or working the project area to excessive noise levels from a private airstrip. There are no private


airstrips within the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, no impacts would occur, and no further study of this issue is required.

XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING

Would the project:

a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

No Impact. The proposed project does not include any residential or commercial land uses and, therefore, would not result in a direct population increase from construction of new homes or businesses. The proposed project involves the modernization of the existing high school campus through the construction of new buildings and renovation of existing buildings. However, implementation of the proposed project is not intended to increase the capacity of the existing school; thus, no increase in enrollment would occur with implementation of the proposed project. Additionally, the proposed project would not require the extension or the increase in capacity of existing off-site infrastructure. As such, the proposed project would not induce substantial population growth in the area, either directly or indirectly. Therefore, no impacts on population growth would occur as a result of the proposed project, and no further study of this issue is required.

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

No Impact. The proposed project would not displace existing housing necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The project site designated for institutional uses and is currently developed with school facilities. No residential uses exist on the project site. Thus, the development of the proposed project would not result in the displacement of existing housing. No impacts would occur, and no further study of this issue is required.

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

No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not displace businesses or jobs necessitating the construction of replacement businesses or jobs elsewhere. As discussed previously, the project site is designated for institutional uses and is currently developed with school facilities. No residential uses exist on the project site. As such, no persons would be displaced as a result of implementation of the proposed project. Construction of replacement housing would not be necessary, and no impacts would occur. No further study of this issue is required.


XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES

Would the project:

a) 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:

i) Fire protection?

No Impact. The proposed project would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities. The Long Beach Fire Department provides fire protection services to the City of Long Beach. Fire Station 12, located approximately 0.4 miles east of the project site at 6509 Gundry Avenue, would serve the project site.36

The proposed project would not increase the capacity of the existing school and, as such, would not generate population growth. Thus, construction and operation of the proposed project would not require additional fire facilities. The proposed project would provide emergency access to the project site in accordance with the applicable fire code, which includes adequate fire flows, fire alarms, and emergency access routes. Additionally, no road closures are anticipated during project construction that would interfere with emergency response. Compliance with the fire code standards would be ensured through the fire department review. No impacts to fire protection services would occur, and no further study of this issue is required.

ii) Police protection?

No Impact. The proposed project would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities. The Long Beach Police Department provides police protection services within the City. The project site is within the jurisdiction of the North Patrol Substation, located approximately 1.8 miles south of the project site at 4891 Atlantic Avenue.37 Police units are continuously mobile and service calls are responded to from the nearest available mobile unit. Accordingly, the location of the proposed project would not affect police response times. Additionally, as discussed previously, development of the proposed project would not generate any new permanent residents. Thus, the officer-to-population ratio would remain the same as under existing conditions without the expansion of or construction of new police protection facilities. Therefore, no impacts to police protection services would occur, and no further study of this issue is required.

36 City of Long Beach Fire Department, Fire Station Locations, website:

http://www.longbeach.gov/fire/fire_station_locations.asp, accessed March 12, 2013. 37 City of Long Beach Police Department, North Patrol Division, website:

http://www.longbeach.gov/police/about/patrol_bureau_deputy_chief/north_division.asp, accessed March 12, 2013.


iii) Schools?

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would physically alter existing school facilities by modernizing the existing high school campus through the construction of new buildings and renovation of existing buildings. However, development of the proposed project would not increase the capacity of the existing school; thus, no increase in enrollment would occur with implementation of the proposed project. Development of the proposed project would benefit the existing campus by providing new and renovated facilities. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated, and no further study of this issue is required.

iv) Parks?

Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 1, Project Description, above, the proposed project includes the construction of interim housing on the existing baseball and athletic practice fields. Additionally, the existing track and football field would be demolished and re-constructed as part of the proposed project. Under existing conditions, the school uses some of the facilities at the adjacent 26.4-acre Houghton Park to hold practice for various athletic teams. However, the proposed project would not increase the capacity of the existing school and would not generate any new permanent residents that would increase the demand for local and regional park facilities. The proposed project would increase the number and quality of athletic facilities provided on the campus, and the baseball and athletic practice facilities would be restored once the use of the interim housing is complete, in approximately fall of 2020. Further, other athletic facilities within the school district would be available for use temporarily while new facilities are constructed on the campus. Therefore, impacts to park facilities would be less than significant, and no further study of this issue is required.

v) Other public facilities?

No Impact. As discussed previously, the proposed project would not increase the capacity of the existing school and would not generate any new permanent residents. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase the demand for other public facilities, and no impact would occur, and no further study of this issue is required.

XV. RECREATION

Would the project:

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?

Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section XIV(iv) above, under existing conditions, the school uses some of the facilities at the adjacent 26.4-acre Houghton Park to hold practice for various athletic teams. However, the proposed project would not increase the capacity of the existing school and would not generate any new permanent residents that would increase the demand for local and regional park facilities. The proposed project would increase the number and quality of athletic facilities provided on the campus, and the baseball and athletic practice facilities would be restored once the use of the interim housing is complete, in


approximately fall of 2020. Further, other athletic facilities within the school district would be available for use temporarily while new facilities are constructed on the campus.

The proposed project would not increase the use of existing recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. No increases in park users are anticipated as a direct result of the proposed project. Therefore, impacts to parks and recreational facilities would be less than significant, and no further study of this issue is required.

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

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project involves the demolition and reconstruction of athletic fields and facilities. No new recreational activities would be supported by the proposed project. As previously discussed, the proposed project would not increase the capacity or enrollment of the existing school, and would not generate any new permanent residents. The potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of this and all other components of the proposed project are analyzed throughout the Initial Study. Construction of the modernized athletic facilities would have no environmental effects beyond the physical impacts associated with the proposed project already addressed in Sections I through XVII of the Initial Study. Therefore, impacts to the construction of recreation facilities would be less than significant, and no further study of this issue is required.

XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC

Would the project:

a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

Less Than Significant Impact After Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. The City of Long Beach requires that a traffic impact analysis be performed when a project would add 50 peak hour trips. The proposed project involves renovation of existing and construction of new school facilities on an existing school site with no increase in the capacity or enrollment of the existing school and no expansion of uses. As such, no new trips are expected to be generated. Therefore, pursuant to the City of Long Beach threshold, a traffic impact analysis is not required for the proposed project.38

During construction of the proposed project, the number of daily trips within the vicinity of the project site would increase as a result of construction workers traveling to and from the site and hauling demolition debris. However, these increases would

38 Iteris, “Traffic Memorandum for Jordan High School CEQA Review”, sent to Nghi Nghiem, LBUSD Facilities,

April 17, 2013.


be relatively minor and temporary in nature. No road closures are anticipated during project construction. As discussed in Section 1.10 above, the construction contractor would coordinate with the City of Long Beach to develop a traffic management plan for any temporary lane closures, and would limit construction in these locations to outside peak travel hours. The potential construction traffic impacts of the proposed project, as well as any required mitigation measures will be further discussed in the EIR.

As previously discussed, capacity and enrollment of the existing school would not be increased with the proposed project, and no expansion of land uses would occur. Thus, there would be no change in the number of trips associated with operation of the proposed project and no change in the distribution of trips that would access the project site.39 Therefore, no operational traffic impacts would occur, and no further study of this issue is required.

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

No Impact. The Congestion Management Program was created statewide as a result of Proposition 111, and has been implemented locally by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. The Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program significance thresholds require that an impact analysis be performed if the proposed project would add 50 or more trips at any intersection monitoring location and/or 150 or more trips to any freeway monitoring location during either the morning or evening weekday peak periods. As previously discussed, the proposed project would not change the enrollment of the existing school facilities. Thus, there would be no change in the existing number of vehicle trips associated with the project site.40 Therefore, the proposed project would not add any trips to a Congestion Management Program monitoring location, and no impact would occur. No further study of this issue is required.

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

No Impact. As discussed previously, the nearest public airport is the Long Beach Airport, located approximately 3.22 miles southeast of the project site. According to the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission’s Airport Influence Area Map for this airport, the project site is located outside the sphere of influence for the Long Beach Airport. Additionally, the project site is not located in the vicinity of any private airstrip. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in air traffic patterns and no impact would occur, and no further study of this issue is required.

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

Less Than Significant Impact After Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project involves the construction of new and renovation of existing school facilities on

39 Ibid. 40 Iteris, “Traffic Memorandum for Jordan High School CEQA Review”, sent to Nghi Nghiem, LBUSD Facilities,

April 17, 2013.


the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not increase the capacity or enrollment of the existing school and no expansion of uses would result. Thus, no incompatible uses would be introduced. During construction, the construction contractor would coordinate with the City of Long Beach to develop a traffic management plan for any temporary lane closures and would limit construction in these locations to outside peak travel hours. As previously discussed, the traffic management plan would contain project-specific measures for noticing, signage, policy guidance, and the limitation of lane closures to off-peak hours. The project design does not include any sharp curves or dangerous intersections. However, the proposed project would reconfigure existing uses on the project site. The potential for the proposed project to result in traffic hazards, as well as any required mitigation measures will be further discussed in the EIR.

e) Result in inadequate emergency access?

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access. The proposed project would comply with applicable Long Beach Fire Department regulations and the California Building Standards Code. Additionally, as discussed in Section XIV(a)(i) above, Long Beach Fire Department would review site plans, including location of all buildings, fences, drive gates, retaining walls or other features that may affect emergency access, with unobstructed fire lanes identified. This review process, along with the LBUSD’s compliance with applicable regulations and standards would ensure that adequate emergency access would be provided at the project site at all times. Therefore, impacts to emergency access would be less than significant, and no further study of this issue is required.

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

No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative modes of transportation. The project site is served by one transit route, Long Beach Transit Route 61, which runs on Atlantic Avenue. Two additional transit routes are located nearby, including Long Beach Transit Route 72 and Metro Route 130, both of which run on Artesia Boulevard.

The proposed project involves construction of new and renovation of existing school facilities with no increase in capacity or enrollment. The proposed project would not include an expansion of uses, and would accommodate bus circulation and provide bicycle parking. Additionally, the proposed project would not require the removal or relocation of alternative transportation facilities. Furthermore, as capacity and enrollment of the existing school would not change with implementation of the proposed project, the number of transit riders is not anticipated to change.41 Thus, the proposed project would not conflict with policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Therefore, no impacts to alternative transportation facilities would occur, and no further study of this issue is required.

41 Iteris, “Traffic Memorandum for Jordan High School CEQA Review”, sent to Nghi Nghiem, LBUSD Facilities,

April 17, 2013.


XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

Would the project:

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

No Impact. The proposed project would not exceed wastewater requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. The proposed project involves construction of new and renovation of the existing school facilities with no increase in capacity or enrollment. Construction activities could degrade water quality; however, the proposed project would be required to obtain coverage under a General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit, which requires the development and implementation of a SWPPP, which would include erosion control measures and construction BMPs pursuant to NPDES permit requirements. Compliance with existing regulations would ensure no construction impacts.

Newly constructed buildings would replace existing facilities with similar uses. Additionally, new structures would be designed to improve water efficiency. As such, a net increase in the generation of wastewater is not anticipated during project operation. Therefore, no operational impacts to wastewater treatment requirements would occur, and no further study of this issue is required.

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

No Impact. 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 previously, the proposed project involves the modernization of the existing campus through construction of new facilities and renovation of existing facilities. The proposed project would not increase the capacity or enrollment of the existing school, and would not generate new permanent residents. Additionally, new structures would be designed to improve water efficiency, which would decrease water consumption and wastewater generation at the project site during project operation. Therefore, no impacts to water and wastewater treatment facilities would occur, and no further study of this issue is required.

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?

No Impact. The proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new or expanded storm water drainage facilities. Runoff from the project site would continue to drain towards the existing municipal storm drain system. The proposed project involves construction of new and renovation of existing facilities on the campus. However, new structures would occupy generally the same building footprints as existing facilities. As such, the amount of impervious surfaces on the project site would be similar to existing conditions, and the amount of runoff from the site would not be expected to increase. Therefore, no impacts to storm water drainage facilities would be occur, and no further study of this issue is required.


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

Less Than Significant Impact. Sufficient water supplies would be available to serve the proposed project from existing entitlements and resources. The proposed project would not increase capacity or enrollment of the existing school, and would not generate any new permanent residents. Although total building square footage would increase, new structures would be designed to improve water efficiency. As such, the amount of water consumed at the project site is not expected to increase with operation of the proposed project. The proposed project would not require new or expanded water supply entitlements. Therefore, no impacts to water supply would occur, and no further study of this issue is required.

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?

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project involves the construction of new and renovation of existing facilities on an existing school site with no increase in capacity or student enrollment. The proposed project involves construction of new and renovation of existing facilities on the campus, and does not involve an expansion of uses. Although total building square footage would increase, new structures would be designed to improve water efficiency. As such, the amount of wastewater generated at the project site is not anticipated to increase during project operation. Therefore, impacts to wastewater treatment capacity would be less than significant, and no further study of this issue is required.

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

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs. Demolition and construction debris would be recycled per the City’s Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance, or transferred to local landfills. The nearest landfill at which construction debris and operational solid waste would be disposed is Sunshine Canyon Landfill in the San Fernando Valley. As of July 2007, the remaining capacity at this landfill is 112,300,000 cubic yards.42 The City’s Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance requires certain construction and demolition projects to recycle at least 60 percent of the waste generated during such activities.43 As such, the amount of construction and demolition waste that would need to be disposed of in an area landfill would be minimized. However, conservatively assuming that none of the construction debris is recycled, the existing remaining landfill capacity would be adequate to accommodate the proposed project. The proposed project would not increase the capacity or enrollment of the existing school facilities. Thus, the amount of solid waste generated at the project site during project operation would be similar to existing conditions. Therefore, impacts to solid waste disposal would be less than significant, and no further study of this issue is required.

42 CalRecycle, Solid Waste Information System, website:

http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/19-AA-2000/Detail/, accessed March 18, 2013. 43 City of Long Beach Office of Sustainability, Waste Reduction, website:

http://www.longbeach.gov/citymanager/sustainability/waste_reduction.asp, accessed March 14, 2013.


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

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. As discussed in Section XVII(f) above, construction debris would be recycled or disposed of according to local and regional standards. All materials would be handled and disposed of in accordance with existing local, state, and federal regulations. Compliance with existing regulations would ensure a less than significant impact, and no further study of this issue is required.

XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

a) Does the project have the potential to substantially 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, substantially 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?

No Impact. Because of the highly urbanized nature of the project area and surrounding land uses, the proposed 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.44 No impact would occur, and no further study of this issue is required.

As discussed in Section V Cultural Resources, several on-site structures were assessed for historic significance due to their ages, including the New Administration Building constructed in 1956, two 1933 classroom buildings, the Cafeteria Building constructed between 1953 and 1954, the Bleacher Building constructed in 1948, the Natatorium Building constructed between 1949 and 1950, the Auditorium Building constructed between 1950 and 1951, the Music Building constructed in 1950, four classroom buildings constructed between 1953 and 1963, and the Auto Shop constructed in 1954. It was determined that the project site is not eligible for the California Register under Criterion 1 through 4. As such, through the historic resources investigation, Jordan High School has been assigned a California Historic Resources Status Code of 6Z and is “found ineligible for the National Register, California Register, or Local designations through survey evaluation.”45 As such, impacts to cultural and historic resources will not be further evaluated in the EIR.

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

Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would have the potential to have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable when considered in conjunction with other separate projects

44 See Section IV, Biological Resources. 45 PCR Services Corporation. Historic Resources Assessment Report. March 2013. (See Appendix A)


implemented near the project area. Where the proposed 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 quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and traffic impacts. These issues, and their cumulative effects, will be further evaluated in the EIR.

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

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 Initial Study: aesthetics, air quality, greenhouse gases, noise, and traffic. These issues will be studied further in the EIR.


Page intentionally left blank


3.0 LIST OF PREPARERS Lead Agency Long Beach Unified School District (LBUSD) Facilities Development & Planning Branch 2425 Webster Avenue Long Beach, California 90810 Project Architect NTD Architecture 955 Overland Court Suite 100 San Dimas, California 91773 Environmental Consultant AECOM 515 South Flower Street, 9th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071 Melissa Hatcher, Project Director

Shannon Ledet, Project Manager Cristina Lowery, Deputy Project Manager/Environmental Analyst Jessica Fernandes, Environmental Analyst Jason Paukovits, Air Quality Analyst Roma Stromberg, Noise Analyst Tim Harris, Graphics Specialist


4.0 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AB Assembly Bill ACM asbestos-containing material ADA Americans with Disabilities Act Amsl above mean sea level AQMP Air Quality Management Plan Bgs below ground surface BMP Best Management Practice CalOSHA California Occupational Safety & Health Administration CARB California Air Resources Board CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CHPS Collaborative for High Performance Schools CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent DBA a-weighted decibel Diesel PM diesel particulate matter DTSC Department Toxic Substances Control EIR Environmental Impact Report EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency FMP Facilities Master Plan GHG greenhouse gas emissions HVAC Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning I-5 Interstate 5 I-710 Interstate 710, Long Beach Freeway LBP lead-based paint LBUSD Long Beach Unified School District LUD Land Use District NFA No Further Action NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System O3 Ozone OCP organochlorine pesticide OSHA Occupational Safety & Health Administration PAH polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons PCB polycholorinated biphenyl PEA Preliminary Environmental Assessment PFC perfluorocarbons PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter PM10 particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less RAO Removal Action Objective RAW Removal Action Workplan SCAB South Coast Air Basin SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SR 1 State Route 1, Pacific Coast Highway SR 91 State Route 91 SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan TAC toxic air contaminant TPH total petroleum hydrocarbons VOC volatile organic compound


5.0 REFERENCES

AirNav, website: http://www.airnav.com/airports/, accessed March 18, 2013.

California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, Important Farmland in California Map, 2008. Available online at: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/statewide/2008/fmmp2008_08_11.pdf, accessed March 4, 2013.

California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Williamson Act Program, Williamson Act Maps in PDF Format, Los Angeles County Williamson Act FY 2011/2012 Map, website: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/LA_11_12_WA.pdf, accessed March 4, 2013.

CalRecycle, Solid Waste Information System, website: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/19-AA-2000/Detail/, accessed March 18, 2013.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Adequacy of Preliminary Environmental Assessment for Public Comment, August 31, 2012.

California Department of Transportation, Scenic Highway Program, Eligible and Officially Designated Routes, February 3, 2013, Available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/cahisys.htm, Accessed: March 20, 2013.

CF Environmental, Inc., Hazardous and Non-Hazardous Materials Inspection, March 21, 2012.

CF Environmental, Inc., Abatement Specifications, Hazardous and Non-Hazardous Material Abatement, September 2012.

City of Long Beach Department of Planning, Land Use Element of the Long Beach General Plan, April 1997. Available online at: http://www.lbds.info/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=2815, accessed March 4, 2013.

City of Long Beach Department of Planning, Open Space and Recreation Element of the General Plan, October 2002.

City of Long Beach Department of Planning, Zoning Map, Quadrant 29, August 2009. Available online at: http://www.longbeach.gov/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=11078, accessed March 4, 2013.

City of Long Beach Fire Department, Fire Station Locations, website: http://www.longbeach.gov/fire/fire_station_locations.asp, accessed March 12, 2013.

City of Long Beach Office of Sustainability, Waste Reduction, website: http://www.longbeach.gov/citymanager/sustainability/waste_reduction.asp, accessed March 14, 2013.

City of Long Beach Police Department, North Patrol Division, website: http://www.longbeach.gov/police/about/patrol_bureau_deputy_chief/north_division.asp, accessed March 12, 2013.


Iteris, “Traffic Memorandum for Jordan High School CEQA Review”, sent to Nghi Nghiem, LBUSD Facilities, April 17, 2013.

Koury Geotechnical Services, Inc., Draft Geotechnical and Geological Engineering Investigation Report, July 27, 2012.

Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Disaster Route Maps by City, Cities of Long Beach & Signal Hill map. Available online at: http://dpw.lacounty.gov/dsg/DisasterRoutes/map/Long%20Beach.pdf, accessed March 18, 2013.

Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning, Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission, Long Beach Municipal Airport, Airport Influence Area Map, May 13, 2003. Available online at: http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/project/aluc_airport-long-beach.pdf, accessed March 18, 2013.

Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning, Los Angeles County General Plan, Special Management Areas Map, November 1980. Available online at: http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/project/gp_web80-special-management-areas-map-4.pdf, accessed March 4, 2013.

Ninyo & Moore, Preliminary Environmental Assessment Sampling Results, July 23, 2012.

Ninyo & Moore, Draft Removal Action Workplan, Jordan High School, October 23, 2012.

South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan, December 2012.

South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. November 1993. p. 6.

South Coast Air Quality Management District. Rule 1403 - Asbestos Emissions From Demolition/Renovation Activities. website http://www.arb.ca.gov/ DRDB/SC/CURHTML/R1403.HTM.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetland Inventory, Wetlands Online Mapper, website: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Wetlands-Mapper.html, accessed March 18, 2013.

jordan high school major renovation project initial...

Documents