appendix a. scoping report · 2018. 12. 19. · belvedere middle school la academy middle school 11...

APPENDIX A.

SCOPING REPORT

SCOPING REPORT

LAUSD NEW SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

SCH# 2003051023

Lead Agency: Los Angeles Unified School District Office of Environmental Health and Safety 355 S. Grand Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1507 Contact: Nicole Nugent-Cobleigh (213) 633-8805

Prepared by: Aspen Environmental Group with assistance from Arellano Associates July 2003

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NEW SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM – PROGRAM EIR SCOPING REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

LAUSD New School Construction i Scoping Report July 2003

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of Scoping .......................................................................................1 1.2 Summary of the New School Construction Program ...............................................1

2. SCOPING PROCESS

2.1 Notice of Preparation and Initial Study ...............................................................2 2.2 Scoping Meetings .........................................................................................4 2.3 Public Outreach ...........................................................................................6

3. SCOPING ISSUES AND CONCERNS ..............................................................................6

4. EIR SCHEDULE AND FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT......................... 15 5. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 16 APPENDICES

A. Notice of Preparation and Initial Study B. Meeting Notices

• Scoping Meeting Notices • Advertisements • Press Releases

C. Meeting Handouts D. Comment Letters

LIST OF TABLES

1. Public Repository Sites .............................................................................................3 2. Publications ..........................................................................................................5 3. Scoping Meetings ...................................................................................................5 4. Summary of Comments ............................................................................................7 5. Program EIR Schedule ........................................................................................... 15

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NEW SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION – PROGRAM EIR SCOPING REPORT

LAUSD New School Construction 1 Scoping Report July 2003

1. INTRODUCTION

This report summarizes the public scoping effort conducted for the Los Angeles Unified School District’s New School Construction Program. It presents the issues and concerns expressed by members of the public and various governmental and community agencies during the public scoping meetings and the public review period for the Notice of Preparation (NOP)/Initial Study (IS). The scoping process provides the public with an opportunity, early in the report development process, to have input into the focus and content of the Program Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR).

1.1 PURPOSE OF SCOPING

The scoping process is not intended to resolve differences of opinion regarding the program or evaluate the program’s merits. Instead, the process allows all interested parties to express their concerns regarding the proposed program, and thereby ensures that all opinions and comments are considered in the Program EIR. A comprehensive and focused Program EIR is essential to a thorough and accurate program evaluation. Members of the public, relevant Federal, State, regional, and local agencies, interest groups, community organizations, and other interested parties may participate in the scoping process by providing comments or recommendations regarding issues to be investigated in the Program EIR.

The purpose of the scoping process of the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) New School Construction Program EIR was to:

• Inform the public and relevant public agencies about the proposed program, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, and the environmental impact analysis process

• Identify potentially significant environmental impacts for consideration in the Program EIR

• Identify possible mitigation measures for consideration in the Program EIR

• Identify alternatives to the program for evaluation in the Program EIR

• Compile a mailing list of public agencies and individuals interested in future Program EIR phases.

1.2 SUMMARY OF THE NEW SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM

The LAUSD proposes the New School Construction Program, an effort designed to provide 200,000 new classroom seats by the year 2020 through construction of new schools and modernization of existing school campuses. Through this effort, the LAUSD intends to provide sufficient seating to educate all district students on a one-track, two-semester, 180-day instructional calendar. In a one-track calendar, all students attend classes and have breaks on the same schedule. Currently, many schools within the LAUSD have adopted staggered multi-track schedules to expand instructional capacity. To accommodate this scheduling, many students attend school for less than 180 days per year. Additionally, many students are bused out of their neighborhood to attend schools with available seats.

The LAUSD adopted the 1998 Facilities Master Plan for Construction as a component of its long-range construction program. At the center of the Plan are four goals:


1. Allow K-12 students to attend their neighborhood schools,

2. Provide classroom space for enrollment growth,

3. Provide classroom space to reduce class size for grades K-3 in all schools and reduce class size for grades 4-12 to pre-1990 levels, and

4. Allow special education students to attend schools in their neighborhood (LAUSD, 1998 and 2000).

After adopting the 1998 Master Plan, the LAUSD identified the overriding goal of returning all students to a one-track, two-semester, 180-day calendar in their neighborhood schools (LAUSD, 2003).

In response to these goals, the LAUSD began Phase I, which will provide 78,000 seats within five years. Additional phases will add the remaining seats. As required under CEQA, environmental impacts of the Phase I building program were addressed through individual, project-specific environmental impact assessment documents completed between 2001 and 2003. Consequently, the Program EIR will focus on Phase II and all additional phases.

Passage of the Measure K bond in November 2002 provided funding for Phase II, which is intended to increase available classroom space and end involuntary busing of students. To achieve these objectives, the district estimates that 35,000 new classroom seats are required. Phase II will also implement a multi-track, 180-day instructional calendar as needed to increase capacity at over-enrolled schools (LAUSD, 2003).

Additional phases will be needed to meet all LAUSD goals. These phases will implement projects similar to those in Phase II and will move all schools to a one-track calendar. Additional phases will add an additional 89,000 to 94,000 seats.

2. SCOPING PROCESS

The process of scoping aims to both inform and survey the public and relevant public agencies. In order to inform the public of its plan to prepare a Program EIR, the LAUSD distributed the NOP and IS. The NOP served officially to inform the public of the Program EIR, to introduce the program, and to request initial comments. The IS provided a preliminary evaluation of the new school construction program. To solicit public comment, the LAUSD held eight public meetings. These meetings provided information on the LAUSD New School Construction Program and the proposed Program EIR and solicited input on the environmental issues that should be considered in the Program EIR. Both the NOP/IS and the public scoping meetings, which form the public scoping process, are discussed in more detail below.

2.1 NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND INITIAL STUDY

On May 5, 2003 the LAUSD issued an NOP that outlined the goals of the program, stated its intention to prepare a Program EIR, and requested comments from all interested parties. Concurrently, the LAUSD prepared an Initial Study that broadly considered the environmental impacts of the proposed program. The Initial Study determined that the program may have a significant effect on the


environment, and the preparation of an EIR was necessary. The NOP/IS had a 30-day public review period that started on May 5, 2003 and ended on June 3, 2003.

The LAUSD distributed the NOP and IS to appropriate local, State, regional, and Federal agencies and to the public document repository sites (Table 1). The NOP and Initial Study are available in Appendix A, as well as at public repository sites.

Table 1 Public Repository Sites

Site Public Document Repository Site District Targeted Corresponding Scoping Meeting Location

LAUSD Offices 1 LAUSD Office of Environmental Health & Safety All N/A 2 LAUSD Office of Communications All N/A

Local District Offices 3 LAUSD Local District A

8550 Balboa Blvd., Northridge A Sepulveda Middle School

4 LAUSD Local District B 5200 Lankershim Blvd., North Hollywood B N/A

5 LAUSD Local District C 6621 Balboa Blvd., Van Nuys C N/A

6 LAUSD Local District D 3000 S. Robertson Blvd., Los Angeles D N/A

7 LAUSD Local District E 4201 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles E Monte Vista St. Elementary School

8 LAUSD Local District F 2151 N. Soto Street, Los Angeles F Virgil Middle School

9 LAUSD Local District G 3710 S. La Brea Ave., Los Angeles G N/A

10 LAUSD Local District H 1115 S. Boyle Ave., Los Angeles H Belvedere Middle School

LA Academy Middle School 11 LAUSD Local District I

611 W. 6th St., Los Angeles I N/A

12 LAUSD Local District J 5800 S. Eastern Ave., Commerce J Park Avenue Elementary School

13 LAUSD Local District K 1208 Magnolia Ave., Gardena K Wilmington Middle School

Public Libraries 14 Los Angeles Public Library

630 W. Fifth Street, Los Angeles All N/A

15 Mid-Valley Regional Branch Library 16244 Nordhoff St., North Hills A Sepulveda Middle School

16 Chatsworth Branch Library Express Station 10044 Old Depot Plaza Rd, Chatsworth A Sepulveda Middle School

17 Pacoima Branch Library 13605 Van Nuys Blvd., Pacoima B N/A

18 Platt Branch Library 23600 Victory Blvd., Woodland Hills C N/A

19 Felipe De Neve Branch Library 2820 West 6th St., Los Angeles F Virgil Middle School

20 Venice-Abbot Kinney Mem. Branch Lib. 501 S. Venice Blvd., Venice D N/A

21 Brentwood Library 11820 San Vicente Blvd., Brentwood D N/A

22 Hollywood Regional Library 1623 Ivar Ave., Hollywood E Monte Vista St. Elementary School

23 Cypress Park Branch Library 1150 Cypress Ave., Los Angeles F Virgil Middle School

24 Anthony Quinn Library H Belvedere Middle School


Site Public Document Repository Site District Targeted Corresponding Scoping Meeting Location

3965 Cesar E. Chavez, Los Angeles 25 Junipero Serra Branch Library

4607 South Main St., Los Angeles H Belvedere Middle School

26 Angeles Mesa Branch Library 2700 W. 52nd St., Los Angeles G N/A

27 Watts (Alma R. Woods) Branch Library 10205 Compton Ave., Watts I N/A

28 Cudahy Library 5218 Santa Ana St., Cudahy J Park Avenue Elementary School

29 Wilmington Branch Library 1300 N. Avalon Blvd., Wilmington K Wilmington Middle School

2.2 SCOPING MEETINGS

Seven scoping meetings were held at sites throughout the district, with an additional presentation to the Parent Advisory Council for Local District A. The objective of the scoping meetings was to obtain public comments on the type of information that should be considered in the Program EIR. The scoping meetings helped to identify relevant issues, define the environmental review process for the public, and provide an opportunity for public input. Arellano Associates and Interpreting Services International (ISI) assisted the LAUSD and Aspen with the public meetings and advertisements.

Given the importance of public input to the scoping process, the LAUSD provided notice of the scoping meetings through various media. These included direct mailings of the public meeting notice, newspaper advertisements, and press releases.

Direct Mailing of Public Meeting Notices. Public meeting notices were prepared in English, Spanish, Korean, Armenian, Russian, and Chinese. These notices provided a background on the New School Construction Program, where to find environmental documents, and information about the location and content of the public scoping meetings. The notice was distributed to 1,277 agencies and organizations identified on the Community Database1 including State and local regulatory agencies and departments, Neighborhood Councils, community groups, environmental groups, economic development groups, elected officials, LAUSD parent associations, religious institutions, libraries, media, and interested parties as identified through previous district meetings and community outreach efforts. In addition, the public meeting notice was mailed to 853 school site administrators (School Principals) and to the 29 public repository sites. Copies of all meeting notices are available in Appendix B.

Newspaper Advertisements. The date and location of the public meetings were advertised in 22 local newspapers (see Table 2). The advertisements provided a brief synopsis of the program and encouraged attendance at the meetings to share comments on the Program EIR. The advertisements were printed in multiple languages including English, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean. Copies of these advertisements are included in Appendix B.

1 The Community Database is the master mailing list of all agencies, individuals, and organizations that may be interested

in the Program EIR or have been involved with LAUSD public meetings in the past. This list will continue to serve as an ongoing record of meeting participants and interested parties. This database is available for review at the LAUSD offices at 355 South Grand Avenue, 15th Floor, Los Angeles.


Press Releases. Press releases containing information about the project and instructions on how to obtain more information were distributed to all interested media venues. A typical press release can be found in Appendix B.

Eight meetings were held throughout the district to allow as many community members as possible to attend. Each Local District (A-K) was targeted by at least one scoping meeting. The meeting sites were located in communities where the district has identified the need for additional school seats. See Table 3 for locations and details of all scoping meetings.

Table 2 Publications Publication Circulation Language Ad Date

Dailies Los Angeles Times 1,104,651 English Thursday, May 15 Daily News 229,500 English Monday, May 19 La Opinión 104,000 Spanish Monday, May 19 Chinese Daily News 245,000 Chinese Monday, May 19 Rafu Shimpo 23,000 Japanese Tuesday, May 20 Korea Times Los Angeles 245,000 Korean Monday, May 19

Weeklies Eastern Group Publications (10 newspapers distributed in East Los Angeles) 104,000 English Thursday, May 15 Wave Community Newspapers (4 newspapers distributed in South Los Angeles, Hollywood and Westside)

309,100 English Wednesday, May 13 and Thursday, May 14

Downtown News 47,000 English Monday, May 12 Armenian Observer 5,000 English Monday, May 12 Total Circulation 2,416,251

Table 3 Scoping Meetings No. Day/Date * Location Districts Targeted Interpretation 1 Tuesday, May 20, 2003 Sepulveda Middle School A, B, C (Valley) Spanish, Armenian 2 Wednesday, May 21, 2003 Park Avenue Elementary J (South) Spanish 3 Thursday, May 22, 2003 Wilmington Middle School K (South) Spanish 4 Tuesday, May 27, 2003 Virgil Middle School D, E, F (Central) Spanish, Korean,

Russian 5 Wednesday, May 28, 2003 Belvedere Middle School F, H (Central) Spanish 6 Thursday, May 29, 2003 Monte Vista Street Elementary E, F (Central) Spanish, Korean 7 Tuesday, June 3, 2003 L.A. Academy Middle School H, G, I, K (Central and South) Spanish Thursday, June 12, 2003

(9a.m.) District A Headquarters Office A (Valley)

* Unless otherwise noted, meetings occurred from 6 to 8 p.m. At each public meeting, representatives from the LAUSD and their consultants introduced the program, discussed the purpose of scoping and the scoping meetings, summarized the results of the IS, and described the Program EIR process. The PowerPoint presentation focused on the following:

• Program goals and objectives

• California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

• Overview of the CEQA process

• Results of the IS

• Program EIR.


In addition to the verbal presentation, the LAUSD provided handouts for further information and for distribution to those who could not attend. Handouts included a meeting agenda, a handout listing program-relevant acronyms and glossary, a public comment card, a graph of current and projected enrollment and target seats, and handouts of the PowerPoint presentation. Maps showing the location of seat need were also presented. All handouts were prepared in multiple languages and are reproduced in Appendix C.

At each meeting, interested community members attended and asked questions, provided input, and signed up to receive further notification about the program. Meeting sign-in sheets and attendance are also available in Appendix C. Public comments made during the question-and-answer session were written on a large tablet so all attendees could view the public comments shared over the course of the meeting (see Table 4).

2.3 PUBLIC OUTREACH

The LAUSD provided opportunities for public questions and comments outside the meetings as well. In addition to the scoping meetings, the district provided a phone hotline and made information available on their webpage. Information on both of these additional public outreach efforts are described below.

Public Hotline. In order to offer the public another opportunity to inquire about the scoping meetings or the New School Construction Program, a public hotline [(213) 633-8411] was established to answer questions, as well as to take verbal comments from those unable to attend the meetings. Telephone messages were retrieved daily and all calls were responded to within a 24-hour period. Comments received through this hotline have been incorporated into the overall Summary of Comments (Table 4).

LAUSD Website. In addition, information related to the Program EIR and the public scoping process was posted on the LAUSD website at <www.laschools.org>. This site remains a resource for information on the Program EIR and notification of future opportunities for public involvement.

3. SCOPING ISSUES AND CONCERNS

All written (Appendix D) and verbal comments received during the public comment period on the NOP/IS, during the public scoping meetings, and through the phone hotline were reviewed for this report and for the Program EIR. Table 4 is a complete summary of comments received during the scoping process, listing the topic, date of comment, mode of comment, local District, and a summary of the comment. Comments are classified into the following issue areas:

• Program Description

• Aesthetics

• Air Quality

• Cultural and Historical Resources

• Geology and Soils

• Hazards and Hazardous Materials

• Hydrology and Water Quality

• Land Use and Planning

• Noise

• Population and Housing

• Recreation

• Transportation and Traffic

• Utilities and Public Service Systems

• General Impacts


• Suggested Alternatives

• Future Program Notification and Program Process

• Public Outreach.

The issues areas of Agricultural Resources and Biological Resources did not receive verbal or written comments during the scoping process.

While all comments were reviewed as part of the scoping process, some comments, such as those addressing operational or staffing issues, were more appropriate for direct district review than for review as part of an environmental impact analysis. Examples of these comments include:

• Funding for teachers in new schools,

• Benefits for teachers in new schools, and

• Opening dates for Phase I schools.

These comments are beneficial and deserve greater consideration than they would receive as part of this process. Therefore, comments not appearing in the following summary have been forwarded to the district for review and consideration under their broader educational mission. This summary contains all comments related to the Program EIR.

Table 4 Summary of Comments Date Mode * District Comment

Program Description 5/28/2003 CC Central

(F, H) Commenter requested discussion of need in terms of school size and classrooms, rather than simply seats.

5/28/2003 V Central (F, H)

Commenter felt that adaptive re-use is better.

5/29/2003 V Central (E, F)

Commenter felt that core facilities are not present at many schools, such as gyms and auditoriums, and that the program should consider more than just seats.

5/29/2003 V Central (E, F)

Commenter wondered if eight to 12-story buildings were being considered.

5/29/2003 V Central (E, F)

Commenter noted that the need is 200,000 seats.

5/30/2003 L Central (E, F)

Commenter noted that interim solutions to overcrowding (quarter calendar system, averaging K-3 class size reduction numbers) are controversial and not approved by Board of Education.

5/30/2003 L Central (E, F)

Commenter disliked the grouping of local districts into areas (Valley, Central, South).

6/3/2003 CC Central and

South (H, G, I, K)

Commenter referenced the goal to “allow special education students to attend schools in their neighborhoods,” and asked if this meant special education campuses would be eliminated.

6/3/2003 V Central and

South (H, G, I, K)

Commenter asked about goals with regard to special education.


South (H, G, I, K)

Commenter asked if special education schools were being eliminated.


South (H, G, I, K)

Commenter was concerned about severely handicapped children in classrooms, and the possibility of them disrupting class or not having their individual needs met.


South (H, G, I, K)

Commenter inquired if existing schools will be modernized, and was concerned they will be left behind.


South (H, G, I, K)

Commenter asked if the priority was just to get schools built.


Date Mode * District Comment


South (H, G, I, K)

Commenter asked how the district will handle space planning.


South (H, G, I, K)

Commenter felt that abandoned properties should be used first.

5/21/2003 V South (J)

Commenter asked whether new schools would definitely eliminate overcrowding.

5/21/2003 V South (J)

Commenter noted there was already funding for Phase I, and asked about funding for Phase II and beyond.

5/22/2003 V South (K)

Commenter inquired as to what the “traditional” track is.

5/22/2003 V South (K)

Commenter asked if this project would eliminate Concept 6.

5/22/2003 V South (K)

Commenter asked of there is an oversight committee on Concept 6.

5/22/2003 V South (K)

Regarding the handout statement [see Appendix], Commenter asked the meaning of the phrase “as test scores rise and retention rate increases.”

6/12/2003 V Valley (A)

Commenter noted that goals of pre-1991 class sizes were misleading in the Valley as 1991 class sizes averaged 35 students per teacher. Discrepancy seems to be that LAUSD aims to reduce current class sizes to pre-1991 goals, which were not achieved in all areas in 1991.

6/12/2003 V Valley (A)

Commenter requested discussion of need in terms of classrooms and educational level, rather than just in terms of seating needs. Also pointed out this would clarify the need for the public, as a need for additional seats could be solved by increasing class sizes, while a discussion of classrooms would clarify the need for new construction. Commenter also requested to know how many classrooms 78,000 seats [Phase I] entails.

Aesthetics 5/28/2003 L Central

(H) The City of Montebello requests landscaping to help reduce light and glare, as well as on perimeter walls to deter graffiti and reduce noise.

Air Quality

5/29/2003 L All

The South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) recommends utilization of AQMD’s Air Quality Handbook, and noted that the lead agency [LAUSD] needs to identify all potential adverse air quality impacts that could occur from all phases of the program. AQMD referred to Chapter 11 of handbook for sample air quality mitigation measures, and noted that data sources are available from AQMD.

5/22/2003 V South (K)

Commenter requested specified construction criteria to include features such as filters to address air quality issues.

5/22/2003 V South (K)

Commenter wondered if the district was aware that local schools have been involved in air quality studies.

5/22/2003 V South (K)

Commenter requested the results of air quality tests.

5/22/2003 V South (K)

Commenter felt air quality is a major issue that needs to be properly addressed.

5/22/2003 V South (K)

Commenter felt the EIR should address “hot spots.”

5/22/2003 V South (K)

Commenter felt the AQMD is not responsive to community reports of hazards and arrive too late.

6/5/2003 L South

(K)

During potential construction periods, the Coalition for a Safe Environment (“The Wilmington Coalition”) requests: • Establishment of a Vehicle Traffic Routing and Parking Plan • Electrical and Alternative Fuel Mobile and Stationary Equipment • Fugitive Dust Barriers and Truck Covers • Daily Neighborhood and Street Cleaning • Electric or Alternative Fuel School Vehicles and Equipment • Maximum School Greening (for community air quality, as well as aesthetics) • Rainfall Capture Roofs and Storage Tanks • Elimination or Minimization of asphalt use


Date Mode * District Comment Cultural and Historic Resources

6/4/2003 L All

The Los Angeles Conservancy is satisfied that the process will satisfy CEQA requirements for preservation of cultural resources. Los Angeles Conservancy requests notification once site selection occurs, as well as draft and final copies of the Program EIR and individual EIRs for selected sites.

5/29/2003 V Central (E, F)

Commenter wondered when a complete Historical Resources inventory will be done.

5/29/2003 V Central (E, F)

Commenter asked if an inventory would be done on all LAUSD properties.

5/29/2003 V Central (E, F)

Commenter noted the Historic Protection Overlay Zone, and felt consideration of this should be part of the process, and that the city should be included.

5/22/2003 CC South (K)

Commenter wondered how the district intended to make sure historic buildings are protected throughout this process, and suggested developing a more collaborative approach to identify potentially threatened historic buildings and incorporating significant buildings into the new campuses.

5/22/2003 CC South (K)

Commenter requested consideration of potential impact on historical school sites, and felt the LAUSD needs to be innovative on mitigation of this issue.

5/16/2003 L South (K) Commenter urged protection of historic buildings, as well as incorporating significant structures into new campuses without destroying them.

Geology and Soils

6/9/2003 L All The County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works (DPW) notes that the EIR must consider the geotechnical issues identified in the Notice of Preparation and Initial Study, such as grading, geotechnical hazards, potentially liquefiable areas, and landslide areas.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials


South (H, G, I, K)

Commenter inquired about asbestos removal plans.


South (H, G, I, K)

Commenter asked if asbestos was being used in new schools.


South (H, G, I, K)

Commenter was concerned the district has used inadequate sites (Belmont) and did not use experts with the right expertise.

5/22/2003 V South (K)

Commenter felt the district safety checklist was inadequate, especially for [their] area, and many things were not properly addressed. Commenter also wanted specific site issues addressed.

5/22/2003 V South (K)

Commenter felt the public has not been properly informed of hazards in the community, and felt they did not trust the City of LA or LAUSD.

5/22/2003 V South (K)

Commenter asked if some existing school sites are not considered because of concerns of what might be found.

5/22/2003 V South (K)

Commenter suggested that mitigation measures should require all schools to have explosion-proof glass, as this was a concern in his community.

Hydrology and Water Quality

6/9/2003 L All The County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works requests study of watershed management in order to maximize rainfall capture, maintain current flows to storm drains, and filter flows leaving the construction site.

6/9/2003 L All The County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works requests further individualized study of drainage and water quality impacts.

6/9/2003 L All The County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works requests consultation regarding any flood control projects that require DPW assistance or maintenance.

Land Use Planning 5/29/2003 V Central

(E, F) Commenter wondered why Land Use and Planning was designated Less Than Significant.

5/29/2003 V Central (E, F)

Commenter wondered what land use conflicts were encountered in Phase I, and on what zoning schools are built. Commenter also wondered if the State code of construction was followed.

5/29/2003 V Central (E, F)

Commenter wondered if any Phase I schools were built in industrial zones.



5/29/2003 V Central (E, F)

With regard to Highland Park, commenter wondered where to locate new schools with regard to their land use impact. Commenter felt the need for new ways to implement schools with regard to site selection.

5/20/2003 V Valley (A, B, C)

Commenter wondered if any school developments in Phase I and II would include joint use (commercial and residential uses).

Noise

6/5/2003 L South (K)

Coalition for a Safe Environment (“The Wilmington Coalition”) is concerned about additional noise associated with potential construction and school activities, as noise standards are currently exceeded in many areas of Wilmington.

6/12/2003 V Valley (A)

Regarding discussion of mitigation measures, commenter asked if the new fences around Van Gogh [School] were for noise.

Population and Housing


South (H, G, I, K)

Regarding Population and Housing, commenter wondered if the Less than Significant finding meant local housing is not valuable.


South (H, G, I, K)

Commenter was concerned how displaced families may not benefit from new schools, and felt they should be compensated at a similar or better situation, or given preferential treatment for affordable housing.

5/22/2003 V South (K)

Commenter cited a previous instance where eleven homeowners were moved in a school construction project, and felt the district needs to address these issues when disrupting neighborhoods.

5/20/2003 V Valley (A, B, C)

Commenter wondered why population and housing were designated as Less than Significant.

Recreation 5/30/2003 L Central

(E, F) Commenter felt that the Less Than Significant impact of new school construction on recreation missed the point.


South (H, G, I, K)

Commenter felt current parks are insufficient, and wondered if there is a plan to expand recreational programs.

Traffic and Transportation

5/13/03 L All

The California Department of Transportation noted that all transportation-related safety measures will need to be implemented, and noise attenuation measures may be needed for school facilities located close to an existing freeway. In addition, traffic studies will be needed to evaluate existing and future traffic conditions. DOT recommended construction-related truck trips on State highways be limited to off-peak commute periods

6/9/2003 L All The County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works believes the project will not have a significant impact on Los Angeles County Highways. Regarding Traffic and Lighting, the DPW requests the individualized EIRs for consideration.

5/28/2003 L Central (H)

The City of Montebello requests public transit stops, with integrated waiting area, at all schools on transit routes.

5/22/2003 V South (K)

Commenter felt Phase I traffic evaluation was inadequate.

6/5/2003 L South (K)

Coalition for a Safe Environment (“The Wilmington Coalition”) notes that hazardous traffic conditions are already present in many areas and could be exacerbated by additional construction and school traffic.

Utilities and Public Service Systems

6/9/2003 L All The County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works is concerned about landfill capacity. The DPW predicts a shortfall in landfill capacity without additional construction activities, and expects program mitigation impacts will have to include solid waste generation.

5/28/2003 L Central (H)

The City of Montebello suggests future project notification include energy-efficiency and sustainability design services such as the Alliance to Save Energy – Green Schools Program and Southern California Edison’s Design and Engineering Services Group.

5/29/2003 V Central (E, F)

Commenter asked what Public Services included.

5/20/2003 V Valley (A, B, C)

Commenter noted that schools can serve as a catalyst for economic development in the local area.

5/20/2003 V Valley (A, B, C)

Commenter wondered why Public Service and Utilities was found to be Less Than Significant.

5/20/2003 V Valley (A, B, C)

Commenter wondered what the public safety component includes.


Date Mode * District Comment General Impacts

6/2/2003 L Central (H)

City of Monterey Park requests consultation with the district to identify local land use and environmental issues such as land use conflicts, traffic and parking, noise, and housing. Additionally, Monterey Park suggests as potential significant impacts Hazards, Land Use, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, and Utilities.


South (H, G, I, K)

Commenter felt that construction and operations for the new schools should hire locally.

5/22/2003 V South (K)

Commenter requested specifics of mitigation measures to ensure environmental protection.

5/22/2003 V South (K)

Commenter felt previous mitigation efforts missed obvious considerations and measures, causing the school to lose areas.

5/22/2003 V South (K)

Commenter said mitigation measures should be specific to each local area rather than general.

5/22/2003 V South (K)

Commenter requested mitigation measures to physically protect school buildings, and cited recent bridge construction that rerouted traffic to bypass schools, which seemed to be unnecessarily dangerous.

6/5/2003 L South (J)

City of Vernon notes that the issues of Hazards and Hazardous Material, Air Quality, Noise, and Land Use are probably issues with regard to the Program EIR and Vernon. Requests copy of Program EIR.

5/20/2003 V Valley (A, B, C)

Commenter inquired if guidelines/thresholds were established for analysis.

5/20/2003 V Valley (A, B, C)

Commenter inquired if the impact analysis covered the entire district.

6/12/2003 V Valley (A)

Commenter inquired as to whether the CEQA process has ever stopped a project for quality of life issues. Commenter then noted that public arguments with school construction projects tend to be quality of life issues, and asked how are these issues balanced if not considered by CEQA.

Suggested Alternatives

5/30/2003 L Central (E, F)

Commenter requested a greater consideration of potential future scenarios; such as if kindergarten became full day, if children from private schools return, or if people move from suburbs back to city. Commenter felt the EIR must look at the impact of alternative solutions.

Future Program Notification and Program Process

5/13/2003 H All Commenter inquired if the scoping meetings were general to the program, or if they mentioned specific schools.

5/19/2003 H All Commenter wanted to know if scoping meetings addressed specific locations, and asked how many phases the program entails. Commenter also asked if the locations of the meetings indicated the order of construction.

5/30/2003 L All

The Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) of the City of Los Angeles notes that it is a Responsible Agency, and requests to be recorded as such in all appropriate CEQA documentation. CRA would like a clear statement of purpose in the Program EIR, as well as notation that more specific documentation will follow as sites are selected. If locations within a redevelopment project are considered, CRA requests notification so as to help identify appropriate sites.

6/9/2003 L All The County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works requests a copy of the Program EIR and subsequent EIRs.

5/27/2003 V Central (D, E, F)

Commenter asked if there would be site-specific EIRs or Mitigated Negative Declarations.

5/27/2003 V Central (D, E, F)

Commenter then asked about the schedule for these documents.

5/27/2003 V Central (D, E, F)

Commenter asked about the process for establishing a baseline for program-wide mitigation measures.

5/27/2003 V Central (D, E, F)

Commenter was pleased that the meeting was easy to find and informative.

5/27/2003 V Central (D, E, F)

Commenter asked if the draft EIR would be available at repository sites.


Date Mode * District Comment 5/27/2003 V Central

(D, E, F) Commenter asked how many new sites are for elementary, middle, or high schools.

5/28/2003 CC Central (F, H)

Commenter requested that personal residence not be considered for a future school site, as it consists of many people (senior citizens) on fixed incomes.


Commenter was glad the community is involved in the process, but was dissatisfied it had taken so long. Commenter requests to work with the LAUSD to site schools and get all schools on a 180-day, two-semester calendar.

5/28/2003 V Central (F, H)

Commenter wondered if the EIR would work with residents.

5/28/2003 V Central (F, H)

Commenter wondered how Local Districts A-K could be analyzed without site-specific information.

5/28/2003 V Central (F, H)

Commenter asked if the Program EIR would replace site-specific EIRs.

5/28/2003 V Central (F, H)

Commenter felt that all Program EIR topics are important.

5/28/2003 V Central (F, H)

Commenter asked how input could be given on environmental impact without knowing specific sites, and felt the process seemed backward.

5/28/2003 V Central (F, H)

Commenter asked if the program environmental analysis would influence site selection.

5/28/2003 V Central (F, H)

Commenter asked if plain language will be used in the Program EIR.

5/28/2003 V Central (F, H)

Commenter asked what law drives [the EIR] process.

5/28/2003 V Central (F, H)

Commenter remarked that individual EIRs must be done.

5/28/2003 V Central (F, H)

Commenter noted that community members will hold the LAUSD accountable for what was learned from Phase I.

5/28/2003 V Central (F, H)

Commenter was dissatisfied with the EIR process for ELA School #1, specifically the traffic analysis.

5/28/2003 V Central (F, H)

Commenter requests to work with the LAUSD if it wants to site a school in [their] community.

5/29/2003 V Central (E, F)

Commenter likes the overall scope of the Program EIR, but feels it loses perspective on mitigation measures.

5/29/2003 V Central (E, F)

Commenter felt the Program EIR is good idea, but wants it to show target areas.

5/29/2003 V Central (E, F)

Commenter wondered why Environmental Justice was included [in the discussion].

5/29/2003 V Central (E, F)

Commenter wondered if the Program EIR replaces site-specific review.

5/29/2003 V Central (E, F)

Commenter asked if the Program EIR will streamline subsequent specific EIRs, and was concerned about bypassing issues.

5/29/2003 V Central (E, F)

Commenter asked if there would be a Program EIR for each of the three sub-regions.

5/29/2003 V Central (E, F)

Commenter asked what had been the process for a Phase I Program EIR.

5/29/2003 V Central (E, F)

Commenter liked the presentation and the presence of the Bond Oversight Committee, but was disappointed there were not more people are present. Commenter also felt a Spanish interpreter should have been present.

5/30/2003 L Central (E, F)

Commenter noted that the Program EIR is not statutorily required, and felt the document should be dynamic and constantly revised to describe current conditions and to provide a vision for the future, as well as the projected environmental consequences of that mission. In formulating a plan for Phase II, commenter felt the next phase(s) should be considered. Commenter also feels there should be more equality of core facilities (gyms, multipurpose rooms, etc.). Commenter was concerned that bond funds address capital improvements, but not program and operational costs.

5/5/2003 L

South (K)

The City of Rancho Palos Verdes had no comments at this time but requested a copy of Program EIR when available.

5/12/2003 L South (J)

The City of Downey had no specific comments at this time, but requested a copy of the Draft EIR when available and notification of any public meetings or hearings.



5/21/2003 CC South (J)

Commenter enjoyed the presentation.

5/21/2003 V South (J)

Commenter inquired if the EIR applied to commercial buildings.

5/21/2003 V South (J)

Commenter wondered when the program will be completed.

5/21/2003 V South (J)

Commenter wondered if sites had already been purchased for new schools.

5/21/2003 V South (J)

Commenter wondered where Phase II schools would be built.

5/21/2003 V South (J)

Commenter inquired about the process for site selection.

5/21/2003 V South (J)

Commenter inquired as to how parents will be chosen for site selection teams.

5/22/2003 CC South (K)

Commenter felt sites or potential sites need to be identified and published to alert neighbors and the surrounding community.

5/22/2003 CC South (K)

Commenter requested consideration of more specific sites or regions as well as more public notification through community organizations.

5/22/2003 V South (K)

Commenter said the EIR should address area specifics.

5/22/2003 V South (K)

Multiple commenters questioned the purpose of a single Program EIR rather than a specific document for area.

5/22/2003 V South (K)

Commenter appreciated that a Program EIR gives another opportunity for community review and input.

5/22/2003 V South (K)

Commenter wanted the Program EIR to address specific issues in specific areas and felt general review was insufficient.

5/22/2003 V South (K)

Commenter wondered what happens to address local needs; did this come after the Program EIR?

5/22/2003 V South (K)

Commenter inquired as to the criteria used to identify the concerns of the local area.

5/22/2003 V South (K)

Commenter wondered if consultations to obtain information on what needs to be addressed in local areas had begun.

5/22/2003 V South (K)

Commenter expressed interest in but skepticism of the Program EIR, and wondered if anything would be done with (his) school site.

5/22/2003 V South (K)

Commenter was not pleased with the environmental review process for Phase I.

5/22/2003 V South (K)

Commenter wondered if desegregation and special needs were still a factor in site selection.

5/22/2003 V South (K)

Commenter felt possible disruption to established neighborhoods needs to be considered when selecting school sites.

5/22/2003 V South (K)

Commenter requested a colored brochure identifying sites.

5/22/2003 V South (K)

Commenter requested having representatives from the Office of Environmental Health and Safety at site selection meetings.

6/5/2003 L South (K)

With regard to the construction process, The Coalition for a Safe Environment (“The Wilmington Coalition”) requested: • Establishment of an Approved Contractor, Subcontractor, Supplier, Equipment, and Material

Program • Establishment of a Project and Building, CEQA, Environmental Justice, and Program

Compliance Checklist • Establishment of a Project and Building Compliance Schedule • Establishment of Compliance Monitoring Plan • Establishment of a Non-Compliance Disciplinary Plan • Preparation and Distribution of Quarterly and Annual Public Status Reports

The Coalition had many additional comments that were more pertinent to the siting and construction phases than to this Program EIR process. These comments are included in their entirety in Appendix F, and have also been transmitted to the LAUSD for consideration in future stages of the Program.

6/12/2003 V Valley (A)

Commenter asked whether or not this process is required.


Date Mode * District Comment 6/12/2003 V Valley

(A) Commenter asked for brief definitions of CEQA and EIRs, and how they relate to each other.

6/12/2003 V Valley (A)

Commenter followed with a question as to whether or not CEQA considers impact of the surrounding environment on the school.

6/12/2003 V Valley (A)

Commenter noted this process seemed to be a result of the Belmont controversy.

Public Outreach 6/4/2003 H All City of Los Angeles Planning Department requested to be on all future mailing lists and identified

the contact person as Faisal Robles of the department.

5/27/2003 V Central (D, E, F)

Commenter had difficulty accessing the site, and wondered what the process would be for public outreach.


Commenter felt the meeting was informative, but felt that for future meetings more elementary parents should be notified. (Translated from Spanish)


Commenter felt that an advisory committee, including community members and residents, should be involved in the entire process.

5/28/2003 V Central (F, H)

Commenter asked about the process for public input.

5/28/2003 V Central (F, H)

Commenter asked if outreach efforts would be similar for site selection, and was concerned that past efforts seemed ineffective. Commenter felt that senior citizens’ groups need to be reached.

5/28/2003 V Central (F, H)

Commenter disliked interactive workshops, and requested formal presentations with question and answer sessions.

5/28/2003 V Central (F, H)

Commenter requested that the district work with community persons and committees for future meetings.

5/28/2003 V Central (F, H)

Commenter believes the community will not have a say in site selection.

5/28/2003 V Central (F, H)

Commenter inquired as to what had been the method of public notice for meetings.

5/28/2003 V Central (F, H)

Commenter asked if residents could get copies of the Program EIR when it is published.

5/29/2003 V Central (E, F)

Commenter felt Neighborhood Councils should be part of the process, as well as PAC, CAC and CRA-LA. Commenter also felt these groups should receive the presentation in advance.

6/3/2003 V Central &

South (H, G, I, K)

Commenter wondered how notice had been given for meeting, as there was a conflict with another meeting.


South (H, G, I, K)

Commenter requested a second notice reminder.


South (H, G, I, K)

Commenter asked how outreach would be done for site selection.

5/21/2003 CC South (J)

Commenter requested that all parents in District J be officially informed about meeting times and locations.

5/22/2003 V South (K)

Commenter felt sites need to be advertised, and “area of need” should then become a zone where people would be notified for meetings.

5/22/2003 V South (K)

Commenter had concerns with the site selection process and public notification.

5/22/2003 V South (K)

Commenter suggested the following venues for meeting notification: local churches, libraries, VFW, American Legion, local banks, markets and the YWCA.

5/22/2003 V South (K)

Commenter felt process lacked continuity between meetings, and requested that the same information be given to all.

5/22/2003 V South (K)

Commenter felt more public attendance needed at meetings to give input on sites, and suggested letters to parents.

5/22/2003 V South (K)

Commenter suggested sending meeting announcements home with students.

5/22/2003 V South (K)

Commenter suggested sending meeting notices through community groups (local community papers), Chambers of Commerce, students, and Wilmington Community Clubs.

5/22/2003 V South (K)

Commenter felt meeting attendance would have been higher if meetings had been advertised to specific areas based on an attendance map.

5/22/2003 V South (K)

Commenter felt meeting attendees should receive free copies of all EIR documents (hard copies or CDs).


Date Mode * District Comment 5/22/2003 V South

(K) Commenter felt there should be community liaisons to attend and speak at meetings.

6/5/2003 L South (K)

The Coalition for a Safe Environment (“The Wilmington Coalition”) had suggestions for future public outreach: • Distribution of informational brochures in all necessary languages, provided to schools by the

district. • Send brochures home with every student • Distribute brochures at PTA, Title I, Booster Club meetings • Establish a database of minority and foreign language media • Press releases to all local newspapers in all necessary languages • Press releases and radio interviews for minority and foreign language media • Place ads in all local newspapers in all necessary languages • Establish database of minority, non-profit organizations, and community leaders to be

contacted for support and outreach • Use minority and non-profit newsletters for outreach • Send LAUSD representatives to local non-profits to give informational presentations • Make a video or CD/DVD with program information and distribute free to community

Establish a database of local environmental organizations for assistance with environmental issues, information, and recommendations.

5/12/2003 H Valley (A, B, C)

Commenter noted that many LAUSD meetings are downtown and difficult for those in the Valley to attend. Commenter requested more convenient meeting locations.

6/12/2003 V Valley (A)

Commenter suggested a pamphlet to all parents explaining the school building program.

* MODE OF COMMENT: V = Verbal; L = Letter; CC = Comment Card; H = Call to Program Hotline

4. EIR SCHEDULE AND FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

The Scoping Process is the initial phase of the Program EIR development. Table 5 presents the proposed schedule for the draft and final versions of the Program EIR. Additional public input will be requested when the Draft Program EIR is released, during the public meetings for the Draft Program EIR, and at Board of Education meetings prior to certification of the Final Program EIR. These dates are target dates and may change. The LAUSD website will provide any changes to this schedule.

Table 5 Program EIR Schedule Event or Document Purpose Approximate Date

Notice of Preparation Interested parties notified of LAUSD’s intent to prepare a Program EIR May 2, 2003

Initial Study Preliminary analysis of proposed program May 2003 Scoping Report Reports public comment on proposed Program EIR June 2003

Draft Program EIR Presents impacts and mitigation for proposed Program and alternatives Late October 2003

Public Review Period (45 Days)

Allows public review of Draft Program EIR (written comments accepted until end of review period – eligibility based on postmark)

Late October to Early December 2003

Public Meetings on Draft Program EIR

Allows public comment on Draft Program EIR November 2003 LAUSD Board of Education Certifies Final Program EIR

Final Program EIR responds to comments on Draft Program EIR Late February 2004


5. REFERENCES

LAUSD (Los Angeles Unified School District). 2003. Strategic Execution Plan. January

_____. 2000. Master Plan Update. June 29.

_____. 1998. Facilities Master Plan for Construction. Building for our Future. Presentation to the Board of Education. May 4.

APPENDICES

A. NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND INITIAL STUDY

B. MEETING NOTICES

Scoping Meeting Notices

Advertisem ents

Press Releases

C. MEETING HANDOUTS

D. COMMENT LETTERS

APPENDIX A.

NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND INITIAL STUDY

Los Angeles Unified School District 1 Notice of Preparation New School Construction Program May 2003

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Notice of Preparation

TO: Agencies, Organizations, and Interested Parties

SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Program Environmental Impact Report for the Los Angeles Unified School District New School Construction Program in compliance with Title 14, Section 15082 (a) of the California Code of Regulations

The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) will be the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in the preparation of a Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for its New School Construction Program. The program description, location, and the probable environmental effects of the proposed program are summarized below and presented in the attached initial study.

Agencies: We request the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information relevant to your agency’s statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed program. Your agency may need to use the PEIR prepared by the LAUSD when considering any permit or other approval your agency must issue for future LAUSD school construction.

Organizations and Interested Parties: Comments and concerns regarding the environmental issues associated with the New School Construction Program are requested from organizations and individuals. Due to the time mandated by State Law, your response must be received no later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Please indicate a contact person in your response and send your response to the following:

Ms. Nicole Cobleigh Los Angeles Unified School District Office of Environmental Health and Safety 355 S. Grand Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1507

In May 2003, seven scoping meetings will be held throughout the district on this program. All parties are welcome to attend and present environmental information that they believe should be addressed in the PEIR.

Information on the location and time of these meetings will be published in general circulation newspapers and will be provided on the LAUSD website (www.laschools.org). For more information on the public scoping meetings, please contact Nicole Cobleigh at (213) 633-8805.

PROGRAM TITLE: LAUSD New School Construction Program

PROGRAM LOCATION: The total area of the district is 704 square miles. In addition to the City of Los Angeles, the district boundaries include all or parts of 25 other cities, as well as some unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: The LAUSD has begun a long-range multi-phased program to construct new schools and modernize existing school campuses. The program will provide 200,000 new classroom seats to fulfill the LAUSD Board of Education’s goal to provide sufficient seats so that all students will be educated on a single-track, two-semester traditional 180-day instructional calendar. Phase I has already begun and will provide 78,000 classroom seats. Phase I projects were evaluated through individual environmental documents and are considered as cumulative projects in this PEIR.

Los Angeles Unified School District 2 Notice of Preparation New School Construction Program May 2003

With the passage of the November 2002 Measure K bond, funding was provided for the implementation of Phase II, which includes activities designed to increase classroom space to achieve class size reduction to pre-1990 levels and end involuntary busing of students outside the attendance areas. Phase II also includes interim goals of achieving a four-track, 180-day instructional calendar to increase capacity at specified schools. In order to meet these goals the LAUSD estimates that 35,000 new classroom seats would be required in Districts A through K.

Specific new school and modernization projects that will be constructed during Phase II will not be available for analysis in the PEIR. Phase II projects will be identified through a series of progressively specific solution sets developed for each district under the direction of the General Superintendent of Schools and in collaboration with the local districts. These solution sets may include a wide range of projects such as:

• Construction of New Schools

• Reconstruction and/or additions to existing campuses

• Small satellite academies supported by a central main campus

• Co-location with other community support services such as family healthcare and childcare.

Additional phases will be needed to provide approximately 90,000 additional classroom seats to allow LAUSD to go from the four-track to the one-track calendar. No specific funding sources have been identified beyond Phase II. Therefore, additional phases will be planned based on the availability of future funding.

Date: May 2, 2003

Los Angeles Unified School District 1 Initial Study New School Construction Program May 2003

Environmental Checklist 1. PROGRAM TITLE: LAUSD New School Construction Program

2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS:

Los Angeles Unified School District Office of Environmental Health and Safety 355 S. Grand Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1507

3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER:

Nicole Cobleigh (213) 633-8805 4. PROGRAM LOCATION:

The total area of the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) is 704 square miles. In addition to the City of Los Angeles, the district serves 25 other cities and several unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County (see Figure 1).

• Cities entirely within LAUSD: Cudahy, Gardena, Huntington Park, Lomita, Maywood, San Fernando, Vernon, and West Hollywood.

• Cities partially within the LAUSD: Bell, Bell Gardens, Beverly Hills, Carson, Commerce, Downey, El Segundo, Hawthorne, Inglewood, Long Beach, Los Angeles County, Lynwood, Montebello, Monterey Park, Rancho Palos Verdes, Santa Monica, South Gate, and Torrance (LAUSD, 2003a).

5. PROGRAM SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS:

Los Angeles Unified School District Facilities Services Division 355 S. Grand Avenue, 6th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1507

6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: The study area includes the entire district. Therefore, the land use

designations would vary and would include residential, commercial, industrial, and other land use designations.

7. ZONING: The study area includes the entire district. Therefore, zoning would vary and would

include residential, commercial, industrial, and other zoning designations. 8. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROGRAM:

Introduction

In recent years, the LAUSD has implemented multi-track calendars at more than 200 schools to expand the instructional capacity at these existing schools (LAUSD, 2003a). Students attend classes and have vacation time on staggered tracks throughout the year under a multi-track calendar. (In a single-track calendar, all students attend classes on the same schedule.) In addition, because of


insufficient number of seats in some areas, the district buses students to nearby schools where additional seats are available (LAUSD, 2003a).

In 1998, the LAUSD adopted the Facilities Master Plan for Construction as part of its long-range building program. This plan identified four goals, as follows: 1) allow K-12 students to attend their neighborhood schools; 2) provide classroom space for enrollment growth; (3) provide classroom space to implement class size reduction (Option I) for K-3 in all schools and reduce class size for grades 4-12 to pre-1990 levels; and 4) allow special education students to attend schools in their neighborhood (LAUSD, 1998 and 2000). Another goal identified by the LAUSD, after the adoption of the 1998 Master Plan, is to have all schools on a two-semester, single-track, traditional 180-day calendar. In response to these goals, the LAUSD embarked on the current building program known as Phase I that will provide approximately 78,000 seats (environmental impacts of Phase I were addressed through project-specific CEQA documents completed between 2001 and 2003). Phase I will be included in the cumulative analysis and discussion in the Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR).

Current demographic projections suggest that a minimum of 125,000 additional new seats will be needed to meet all LAUSD goals as currently identified. Phase II of the program intends to add 35,000 classroom seats. An additional 90,000 classroom seats will be identified through additional program phases.

Program Description

The proposed new school construction program consists of a phased approach. Phase II will be developed in response to recent approved funding. Additional phases will be proposed as funding has been identified. The proposed program includes the following:

Phase II. With the passage of the Measure K bond in November 2002, funding was provided for the implementation of Phase II. The two basic objectives of Phase II are to increase classroom space to achieve class size reduction to pre-1990 levels and end involuntary busing of students outside the attendance areas. Phase II would also implement a four-track, 180-day instructional calendar to increase capacity at specified schools. To achieve these objectives, the District estimates that 35,000 new classroom seats would be required in Districts A through K (LAUSD, 2003b).

Specific new school and modernization projects that will be constructed in Phase II will not be available for analysis in the PEIR. Phase II projects will be identified through a series of progressively specific solution sets developed for each district under the direction of the General Superintendent of Schools and in collaboration with the local districts. These solution sets may include a wide range of projects such as:

• Construction of New Schools

• Reconstruction and/or additions to existing campuses

• Small satellite academies supported by a central main campus

• Co-location with other community support services such as family healthcare and childcare.

A phased implementation plan will be developed from each local district’s solution concepts. Those projects, which will proceed under the Phase II funding, will meet both the community-developed implementation plan and the board approved priority criteria for expenditure of funds, as detailed in the comprehensive Strategic Execution Plan (January 2003) approved by the Board of Education (LAUSD, 2003b).


Additional Phases. Additional phases will be needed to supply sufficient seats to meet all of the LAUSD goals. These phases would be a continuation of Phase II and would include activities necessary to provide additional seats to go from the four-track to the one-track calendar. Some or all of the solution sets considered in Phase II above would be part of this phase or phases. However, the focus would be on the need to construct an additional 89,000 to 94,000 seats.

There are no specified funding sources for these phases of the program. These phases will be determined and planned based on the availability of future funding.

9. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING:

The proposed program encompasses the 704 square miles that make up the district boundaries (LAUSD, 2003a). The district includes 11 local districts and covers the City of Los Angeles and other city jurisdictions (see program location). Because of the urban nature of these cities, the district includes a wide range of land uses and settings. The PEIR will include a description of the different land uses and settings within the district boundaries.

10. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL MAYBE REQUIRED:

Agency Approval • California Office of Public School Construction • Approval of Funding • California Department of Education – School

Facilities Planning Division • Approval of Final Site Plan and Final

Plan • California EPA – Department of Toxic Substance

Control • Determination of No Further Action,

Oversee all Clean-up Actions • California Division of State Architect • Approval of Construction Drawings • City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation • Review and Concurrence with traffic

study

Reviewing Agencies • California Office of Historic Preservation • California Department of Transportation • California Department of Conservation • California Department of Fish and Game • California Department of Parks and

Recreation • Native American Heritage Commission • State Lands Commission • California State Allocation Board • County of Los Angeles Fire Department • City of Los Angeles Planning Department • City of Los Angeles Department of

Building and Safety • City of Los Angeles Department of Public

Works • City of Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering • City of Los Angeles Community

Redevelopment Agency

• City of Los Angeles Office of the Chief of Police

• City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation • City of Los Angeles Waste Water

Engineering Services Division • City of Los Angeles Department of Water

and Power • City of Los Angeles Department of

Recreation and Parks • City of Los Angeles Fire Department • City of Los Angeles Department of

Environmental Affairs • South Coast Air Quality Management

District • Los Angeles Regional Water Quality

Control Board • Other city jurisdictions and local agencies

within the LAUSD Boundaries

A B

C

D

E

F

G

H

IJ

K

Chatsworth

Granada Hills

Sylmar

San

Fernando

PacoimaSunland

Van NuysReseda

Woodland Hills

North Hollywood

Hollywood

West Hollywood

Eagle

Rock

Highland Park

Pacific Palisades

ice

Ven

Westchester

Los

Angeles

Vernon

MaywoodHuntington

Park

SouthGate

Lomita

San Pedro

Carson

Cudahy

Gardena

Bell

Bell Gardens

BeverlyHills

Commerce

Downey

ElSegundo

Hawthorne

Inglewood

Long Beach

Lynwood

Montebello

Monterey Park

Rancho Palos

Verdes

Santa

Monica

Torrance

Compton

118210

405

101

170

101

10

710

105

91

110

405

5

N

100 5

Scale in Miles

PACIFIC OCEAN

LAUSD Boundary

GLocal Districts

Within LAUSD

Boundary(shading distinguishes

between local districts)

Los Angeles Unified School DistrictNew School Construction Program

4 Initial StudyMay 2003

AspenEnvironmental Group

Figure 1

LAUSD Local Districts

LAUSD New Construction Program

Source: Adapted from www.lausd.k12.ca.us/lausd/new/announce/supintendent_search/11districts.html


ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

The environmental factors checked below will be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” or is “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance

Note: Although not all of the environmental factors listed above are considered potentially significant, all of the issues listed will be considered in the PEIR to provide a comprehensive program-level document.

DETERMINATION:

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the Proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

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

I find that the Proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

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

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

Date: May 2, 2003


EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:

I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: Potentially Significant

Impact

Potentially Significant

Unless Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than Significant

Impact No Impact

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to,

trees, rock out-croppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

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

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

Explanation: a-d) Potentially Significant. The proposed program, depending on the surroundings of future project sites, could

have an adverse visual impact and/or a lighting/glare impact through the introduction of new structures, buildings, and light sources to a project area. LAUSD incorporates design features in its construction plans that reduce or avoid aesthetic impacts. These measures reduce spillage of light from the project site by requiring designs that reduce glare such that neither the light source nor its image from a reflectory surface results in spillage of light from any point measured five feet from the subject property line. Mitigation measures have been adopted by the LAUSD for past projects that further reduce or avoid aesthetic impacts. They include: situating athletic facilities away from residential areas; using security lighting with low wattage bulbs and prismatic glass coverings that inhibit the spread of light; aiming lights away from adjacent residences; painting light poles to reduce reflection; and providing luminaries with filtering louvers and hoods, aimed away from areas where spill light is a problem. The PEIR will identify and evaluate standard mitigation measures and potential significance thresholds that will be considered during future site-specific reviews. However, the PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

II. AGRICULTURAL 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 prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:


Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact

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

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

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

Explanation: a-c) Less than Significant. The LAUSD boundaries encompass the City of Los Angeles, eight other complete

cities, and another seventeen cities and the County are partially within the boundaries. These areas are generally highly urbanized with only small pockets of prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide significance (DOC, 2003 and LAUSD, 2003c). There may be pockets of agriculturally zoned land within the district boundaries that could be replaced by the construction of new schools. Previous use of a property for agricultural purposes would be evaluated by the LAUSD through a Health Risk Assessment to assess the use of pesticides on the site. Although the impact of the proposed program on agriculture is thought to be less than significant, the PEIR will investigate this issue further and develop guidelines for addressing this issue should it need to be addressed on future project reviews. The PEIR will identify and evaluate


standard design measures and potential significance thresholds that will be considered during future site-specific reviews. However, the PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

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:


Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact

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

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

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

d) Create or contribute to a non-stationary source “hot spot” (primarily carbon monoxide)?

e) Expose sensitive receptor to substantial pollutant concentrations? f) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

Explanation: a) Less than Significant. The proposed program is subject to the requirements of the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA), the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The program would be deemed inconsistent with air quality plans if it results in population and/or employment growth that exceed growth estimates in the applicable air quality plan. The proposed program does not include any residential development, housing, or large local or regional employment growth. The proposed program is intended to accommodate an existing capacity shortfall and expected growth in the region. It is assumed that the emissions associated with future construction and operation of the proposed program would not obstruct the implementation of the applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP) or Congestion Management Plan (CMP). The PEIR would evaluate whether the proposed program conforms to the requirements of the AQAP and the CMP.

b) Potentially Significant. The proposed program would be located in the South Coast Air Basin, which is non-

attainment for ozone, PM10, and carbon monoxide (CO). Implementation of the program could contribute to short-term and long-term air quality impacts in a non-attainment area. Short-term construction emissions could result from the operation of heavy-duty construction equipment, clearing of debris and asphalt, on-site excavation and grading, and transportation of demolition debris and excavated material to off-site disposal locations. Long-term program impacts could include emissions generated from vehicles of the school employees and students, as well as general operation of the schools. LAUSD program design features that can reduce impacts to air quality include implementing measures to reduce PM10 emissions under high wind and normal wind conditions pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 403; properly tuning and maintaining construction equipment; encouraging ride-sharing programs for students and teachers; and maintaining fleet vehicles in good condition. Mitigation measures that LAUSD has adopted in the past to reduce PM10 air quality impacts include: paving or applying chemical stabilization at sufficient concentrations and frequency to maintain a stabilized surface on roadways, installing track-out control devices, removing track-out material on public paved roads during active operations, and removing all visible roadway track-out dust on public paved roadways at the conclusion of each workday. With regard to NOx emissions, mitigation measures LAUSD has adopted in the past include: monitoring the use of on-site heavy-duty construction equipment during the excavation/site preparation/trenching phase; monitoring haul truck trips per day; requiring trucks and vehicles in loading and unloading queues to keep their engines off, when not in use, to reduce vehicle emissions; phasing construction to avoid emissions peaks; and stopping construction during second-stage smog alerts. Additional design measures reduce ROG emissions by specifying paints with low VOC content. The PEIR will identify and evaluate standard mitigation measures and potential significance thresholds that will be considered during future site-specific reviews. In addition, the PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.


c) Potentially Significant. Implementation of the proposed program could potentially contribute to air quality impacts when combined with other existing and future emission sources in the program area. The PEIR will identify and evaluate standard mitigation measures and potential significance thresholds that will be considered during future site-specific reviews. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

d) Potentially Significant. The proposed program could create or contribute to a non-stationary source “hot

spot.” This issue will be considered further to assess the likelihood of the program to create these non-stationary source “hot-spots.” The PEIR will identify and evaluate standard mitigation measures and potential significance thresholds that will be considered during future site-specific reviews.

e) Potentially Significant. The emissions associated with school construction may cause significant emissions

levels near sensitive receptors (e.g., residences). To address this issue further, the PEIR will identify and evaluate standard mitigation measures and potential significance thresholds that will be considered during future site-specific reviews. No site-specific impacts will be identified in this assessment because they would be too speculative for consideration. The thresholds of significance for construction as well as operational emissions would be based on the criteria used by the SCAQMD’s implemented criteria and LAUSD air quality guidelines.

f) Potentially Significant. Diesel emissions from construction equipment may create objectionable odors. These

odors would be temporary; however, it may affect nearby residents or workers. Some of the measures identified in (b) could be used to reduce these impacts. The PEIR will identify and evaluate standard mitigation measures and potential significance thresholds that will be considered during future site-specific reviews. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Potentially

Significant Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact

a) Adversely impact, either directly or indirectly or through habitat modification, any endangered, threatened or rare species as listed in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (sections 670.2 or 670.5) or in Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations (section 17.11 or 17.12)?

b) Have substantial adverse impacts, either directly or indirectly 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?

c) Have a substantial adverse impact 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?

d) Have a substantial adverse affect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc) either individually or in combination with known probable impacts of the activities through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

e) 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 wildlife nursery sites?

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

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

Explanation: a-g) Less than Significant. The proposed program is not expected to have an adverse impact on biological

resources, wetlands, sensitive habitat areas, or areas managed under a Habitat Conservation Plan. Depending


on the location of future site construction, the program has the potential to remove trees protected by local ordinance to accommodate school buildings or structures. To reduce impacts from tree removal, the LAUSD works with local agencies to ensure compliance with any applicable tree removal ordinance or to determine the best approach for removing or moving protected trees (i.e., oak trees). Although this program is not expected to significantly impact biological or sensitive resources, the PEIR will identify and evaluate standard design measures and potential significance thresholds that will be considered during future site-specific reviews. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Potentially

Significant Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, which is either listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Resources, or a local register of historic resources?

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of unique archaeological resources (i.e., an artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions, has a special or particular quality such as being the oldest or best available example of its type, or is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person)?

c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal

cemeteries?

Explanation: a) Potentially Significant. The City of Los Angeles as well as other cities within the district boundaries have

the potential for historical resources, which are listed or eligible for listing in the California Register or local listing of historic places. The program, depending on the location of future projects, has the potential to impact these historic resources by siting new schools on or near these sites. The LAUSD requires an assessment of all historic and potentially historic sites by a qualified historian who determines what measures would be taken to reduce or avoid impacts. The PEIR will identify and evaluate standard mitigation measures and potential significance thresholds that will be considered during future site-specific reviews. This evaluation will not be site-specific, however, it will be developed at a program-wide level.

b-d) Potentially Significant. The proposed program could have an adverse impact to cultural resources

(archeological, paleontological, or human remains) from the future construction of new schools and the expansion of existing schools. LAUSD incorporates program design features in its projects that reduce or avoid impacts to cultural resources. These features include: conducting record searches to determine if any previously evaluated resources are present at potential school sites, preparing reconnaissance surveys of potential school sites, preparing Intensive Surveys (if required), suspending construction work in the vicinity of archaeological resources or human remains if discovered during ground-disturbing activities and notifying LAUSD or the County Coroner, respectively. To further address this issue the PEIR will identify and evaluate standard mitigation measures and potential significance thresholds that will be considered during future site-specific reviews. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.


VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: Potentially Significant

Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact

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

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?

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

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil? c) Locate on geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become

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

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

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

Explanation: a-e) Potentially Significant. The implementation of the program has the potential to expose people or structures

to substantial adverse effects due to rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure (including liquefaction), and/or landslides. Southern California is a seismically active region that experiences earth movements known to cause damage to persons and property. LAUSD program design features that can reduce or avoid impacts due to geology and soils include providing an assessment of the potential earthquake or other geological hazard damage if the proposed school site is located within an Alquist-Priolo or other special studies zone; examining the potential for caving, ground motion, liquefaction, dynamic settlement, inundation and landslides; not selecting a site within an area of flood or dam flood inundation unless the cost of mitigating the flood or inundation is reasonable; and, where necessary, conducting a geotechnical evaluation of the project site that satisfies the requirements of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California (CDMG Special Publication 117) and the CDMG Checklist for the Review of Geologic/Seismic Reports for California Public Schools, Hospitals, and Essential Services Buildings. The recommendations of the geotechnical report are incorporated into the project design prior to submittal to the State Architect for approval. To reduce impacts LAUSD has adopted mitigation measures on previous projects that reduce or avoid geology/soil impacts. These measures include: channeling surface runoff through on-site drainage systems to existing storm drains; employing soil erosion control plans; providing program design recommendations and having them verified by a qualified geotechnical expert. Although some mitigation measures have been developed, the PEIR will identify and evaluate standard mitigation measures and potential significance thresholds that will be considered during future site-specific reviews. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

VII. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: Potentially

Significant Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact

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

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


VII. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: Potentially Significant

Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact

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

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

e) Result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area, 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?

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

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

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

i) Be located on a site that is (a) a current or former hazardous waste disposal site or solid waste disposal site and, if so, has the waste been removed; (b) a hazardous substance release site identified by the State Department of Health Services in a current list adopted pursuant to Section 25356 for removal or remedial action pursuant to Chapter 6.8 of Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code; or a site that contains one or more pipelines, situated underground or above ground, which carries hazardous substances, acutely hazardous materials or hazardous wastes, unless the pipeline is a natural gas line which is used only to supply natural gas to that school or neighborhood?/

j) Be located within one-fourth of a mile of any facilities which might be reasonably anticipated to emit hazardous or acutely hazardous substances or waste?

k) Be located on a site where the property line is less than the following distance from the edge of respective power line easements? 100 feet of a 50-133 kV line, 150 feet of a 220-230 kV line, or 350 feet of a 500-550 kV line.

l) Be located on a site that is within 1,500 feet of a railroad track easement?

m) Be located on a site that is adjacent to or near a major arterial roadway or freeway that may pose a safety hazard?

n) Be located on a site that is near a reservoir, water storage tanks, or high-pressure water pipelines?

o) Be located within 1,500 feet of a pipeline that may pose a safety hazard?

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

q) Be located on a site that does not have a proportionate length to width ratio to accommodate the building layout, parking and playfields that cannot be safely supervised?

r) Be located on a site where the existing or proposed zoning of the surrounding properties is incompatible with schools and may pose a health or safety risk to students?

s) Be located on a site with a traffic pattern for school buses that can pose a safety hazard?

t) Be located on a site that is within 2,000 feet of a significant disposal of hazardous waste?


Explanation: a) Less than Significant. New schools are not expected to use, store, transport, generate, or dispose of large

quantities of hazardous substances. Hazardous or flammable substances that could be used during construction would include vehicle fuels and oils in the operation of heavy equipment for site grading and building construction. Construction vehicles on site may require routine or emergency maintenance that could result in the release of oil, diesel fuel, transmission fluid, or other materials. However, the materials used would not be used in large quantities or stored in a manner that poses a significant hazard to the public. In addition, certain courses such as chemistry and shop may involve small quantities of chemicals, fuels and other petroleum products, solvents, and paints. LAUSD requires appropriate storage of hazardous materials, installing or affixing appropriate warning signs and labels, using commercial services that specialize in the recycling of used automotive fluids, installing emergency waste areas for flushing irritating automotive fluids from eyes and exposed skin areas should such contact occur, providing for well-ventilated areas in which to use paints and solvents, and maintaining adult supervision during students’ use of hazardous materials. Therefore, the program with implementation of design measures would result in less-than-significant impacts. However, the PEIR will identify and evaluate standard design measures and potential significance criteria that will be considered during future site-specific reviews.

b) Potentially Significant. As noted in (a) above, the program is not expected to generate hazardous materials

or substances that pose a hazard to the public. In siting schools and school related facilities, LAUSD follows the requirements set out by the California Department of Education and Department of Toxic Substances Control to reduce the impact of siting schools on a hazardous waste disposal site, a hazardous substance release site, or a site that contains one or more pipelines. Background searches are conducted to determine the location of these sites near a potential school site. If the proposed school site is within 2,000 feet of a significant hazardous waste disposal site, the LAUSD contacts the DTSC for a determination of whether the property should be considered a Hazardous Waste Property or Border Zone Property. CCR, Title 5, § 14010(t). Further consideration of this issue will be evaluated in the PEIR. The PEIR will identify and evaluate standard guidelines, standard mitigation measures, and potential significance thresholds that will be considered during future site-specific reviews [also, see responses (d) and (n)]. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

c) No Impact. The program would facilitate the development of new classroom seats within district boundaries but would not involve actual school construction at this time. This program would not result in facilities that emit hazardous emissions or handle large quantities of hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of an existing school.

d) Potentially Significant. The LAUSD has established procedures for siting schools in areas that pose the least safety risk to students and staff. These procedures are based on the California Department of Education siting process and on the California Department of Toxic Substances Control requirements for determining whether a project site is listed as a hazardous materials site. These procedures generally require the following:

• Create an environmental impact report or negative declaration to determine whether the proposed site is

any of the following: (i) a current or former hazardous waste disposal site or solid waste disposal site unless, if the site was a former solid waste disposal site, the educational agency concludes that the wastes have been removed; (ii) a hazardous substance release site identified by the State Department of Health Services; or (iii) the site of one or more pipelines, situated underground or aboveground, which carry hazardous substances, materials, or wastes, unless the pipeline is used only to supply natural gas to that school or neighborhood.

• Do not locate a school on the site without a specific variance in writing by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), if the proposed site has been designated a border zone property by the DTSC.

• Perform an assessment to determine if there is potential for exposure to naturally occurring hazardous materials such as oil, gas, or asbestos containing serpentine rock.

• Assess and receive approvals for toxic and hazardous materials before receiving final site approval from the California Department of Education (CDE) and funds under the School Facilities Program.

• Contact the DTSC for a determination of whether the property should be considered a Hazardous Waste Property or Border Zone Property. CCR, Title 5, § 14010(t), if the proposed school site is within 2,000 feet of a significant disposal of hazardous waste


• Consider whether a site is located near or downwind from a stockyard, fertilizer plant, soil-processing operation, auto dismantling facility, sewage treatment plant, or other potentially hazardous facility.

Although a process has been established for addressing this issue, the PEIR will identify and evaluate

standard mitigation measures and potential significance thresholds that will be considered during future site-specific reviews. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

e) Less than Significant. Although the program would not involve specific project sites, there is a potential for

future projects identified through this program to be sited near an airport runway. If a future site is within two miles of an existing airport runway, or a potential runway included in an airport master plan, the LAUSD Board of Education and the Department of Transportation would review the acquisition of the site, holding a public hearing prior to acquisition of the property, if necessary. To further assess this issue, the PEIR will identify and evaluate standard design measures and potential significance thresholds that will be considered during future site-specific reviews. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

f) Less than Significant. Although the program would not involve specific project sites, there is a potential for future projects identified through this program to be sited near an air strip. If a future site is within two miles of an existing air strip, the LAUSD Board of Education and the Department of Transportation would review the acquisition of the site, holding a public hearing prior to acquisition of the property, if necessary. To further assess this issue, the PEIR will identify and evaluate standard design measures and potential significance thresholds that will be considered during future site-specific reviews. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

g) Less than Significant. The proposed program would facilitate the development of 125,000 new classroom

seats within district boundaries. While specific projects are not proposed at this time, it would provide for the construction and operation of new schools, reconstruction, and/or additions to existing campuses, small satellite academies, and co-location of schools with other community support services. The program is intended to house existing students and to address expected growth in the region. Therefore, the program would not physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Even though the program would have a less-than-significant impact on emergency plans, the PEIR will identify and evaluate standard design measures and potential significance thresholds that will be considered during future site-specific reviews. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

h) Less than Significant. As noted in the program description, the district encompasses 704 square miles of

land area. It includes 11 local districts and covers the City of Los Angeles, eight other complete cities, and partially includes seventeen other city jurisdictions and the County. The majority of the district is urbanized with few pockets of undeveloped land; the majority is out of the vicinity of wildlands. All LAUSD projects comply with all applicable fire codes requirements. Therefore, the program would not have a significant impact on wildland fires. However, the PEIR will identify and evaluate standard design measures and potential significance thresholds that will be considered during future site-specific reviews. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

i) Potentially Significant. As noted previously, the program would facilitate the development of 125,000 new

classroom seats within district boundaries. While specific projects are not proposed at this time, it would provide for the construction and operation of new schools, reconstruction, and/or additions to existing campuses, small satellite academies, and co-location of schools with other community support services. In siting these schools and school related facilities, LAUSD follows the requirements set out by the California Department of Education and Department of Toxic Substances Control to reduce the impact of siting schools on a hazardous waste disposal site, a hazardous substance release site, or a site that contains one or more pipelines. Background searches are conducted to determine the location of these sites near a potential school site. If the proposed school site is within 2,000 feet of a significant disposal of hazardous waste, the LAUSD will contact the DTSC for a determination of whether the property should be considered a Hazardous Waste Property or Border Zone Property per CCR, Title 5, § 14010(t). Further consideration of this issue will be evaluated in the PEIR. The PEIR will identify and evaluate standard mitigation measures and potential significance thresholds that will be considered during future site-specific reviews [also, see responses (d) and


(n)]. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

j) Potentially Significant. In siting school and school-related facilities, LAUSD avoids placing school facilities

within one-quarter mile of any facilities that might be reasonably anticipated to emit hazardous or acutely hazardous substances or waste. Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21151.8 (a) [2], the LAUSD consults with the applicable local agency and the South Coast Air Quality Management District to identify hazardous and acutely hazardous substance facilities within one-quarter mile from a proposed school site. In approving school sites, the LAUSD must find that no facilities were identified; there would be no health risks associated with identified facilities; or that mitigation measures implemented as part of the project will result in emissions that do not constitute a health concern (CDE, 2000). The LAUSD conducts a health risk assessment (Air Toxics Assessment) if facilities are identified within one-quarter mile of a proposed school site. To reduce impacts, the LAUSD incorporates design measures that provide a minimum ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers) Dust Spot Efficiency of 30 percent in the school building, air handling systems to limit contaminant concentrations within building structures, and reduce carcinogenic risk levels below the established significance threshold. The air handling systems must be maintained on a regular basis as per manufacturer’s recommendations to ensure that the ASHRAE Dust Spot Efficiency remains above the minimum recommended level. The PEIR will address this process and will also describe measures taken to further reduce impacts, if needed. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

k) Less than Significant. According to CDE requirements, the LAUSD must consider the proximity of power

transmission lines to proposed school sites. Buffers have been identified from the proposed school site to the transmission line corridor. The LAUSD must comply with this requirement when siting schools. Even though specific standards have been set regarding the distance schools are located from transmission lines, the PEIR will consider this issue further. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

l) Less than Significant. According to CDE requirements, the LAUSD must consider the proximity of

railroads to proposed school sites. The requirement is to site schools greater than 1,500 feet from a railroad track easement. A safety study is needed to support any site proposed within 1,500 feet of a railroad track. The LAUSD must comply with this requirement when siting schools. Even though specific standards have been set regarding the distance schools are located from railroads, the PEIR will consider this issue further. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

m) Less than Significant. According to CDE requirements, the LAUSD must consider the proximity of major

arterial roadways or freeways that may pose a safety hazard from proposed school sites. The LAUSD must comply with this requirement when siting schools. Even though specific standards have been set regarding the distance schools are located from major arterial roadways and freeways, the PEIR will consider this issue further. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

n) Less than Significant. According to CDE requirements, the LAUSD must consider the proximity of

reservoirs, water storage tanks, or high pressure water pipelines to proposed school sites. If a proposed school site is within 1,500 feet of the easement of an above-ground or underground water pipeline that can pose a safety hazard, the LAUSD shall obtain hazard information regarding the pipeline from its owner or operator. If site selection involves such pipelines, the LAUSD must provide safeguards to minimize or avoid activities in proximity to the pipeline, locate facilities to preclude possible funding, and develop an emergency response plan in the event of a pipeline failure. The LAUSD must comply with this requirement when siting schools. Even though specific standards have been set regarding the distance schools are located from water facilities, the PEIR will consider this issue further. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

o) Less than Significant. According to CDE requirements, the LAUSD must consider the proximity of

proposed school sites to pipelines. The LAUSD must comply with this requirement when siting schools and is prohibited from approving a project involving the acquisition of a school site if the site is located “within 1,500 feet of the easement of an above-ground or underground pipeline that can pose a safety hazard as determined by a risk analysis study, conducted by a competent professional, which may include certification from a local public utility commission.” Even though specific standards have been set regarding the distance


schools are located from pipelines, the PEIR will consider this issue further. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

p) Less than Significant. According to CDE requirements, the LAUSD must consider the school’s proximity

to propane tanks that pose a safety hazard. The LAUSD must comply with this requirement when siting schools. Even though specific standards have been set regarding the distance schools are located from propane tanks, the PEIR will consider this issue further. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

q) Less than Significant. According to CDE requirements, the LAUSD must consider the length and width

ratio of a proposed site to ensure that students can be safely supervised. Although the program will not involve consideration of specific sites, the LAUSD must comply with this requirement when siting schools. The limited available area for new schools in a highly urbanized area such as the LAUSD could make it difficult to address this requirement. However, the design and layout of schools takes into account school site safety. Even though specific standards have been set regarding school site safety, the PEIR will consider this issue further. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

r) Less than Significant. The proposed program is not expected to result in schools being sited near

incompatible land uses or adjacent to land uses that may pose a health and safety risk to students. In addition, the LAUSD’s compliance with the CDE and DTSC requirements mentioned in comments (a) through (p) would reduce the potential for siting schools near incompatible land uses. Although the PEIR will not consider site specific impacts, it will consider the program’s consistency with applicable land use and zoning requirements.

s) Less than Significant. The intent of the program is to achieve a single-track calendar for all students and to

have students attend schools in their neighborhoods. The program will reduce the amount of involuntary busing and would not pose a safety hazard with regard to the traffic pattern for buses. With full implementation of the program, involuntary busing of students would be eliminated and therefore this program would have a less-than-significant impact to bus traffic patterns. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

t) Less than Significant. According to CDE requirements, the LAUSD must consider the proximity of the

school to a significant disposal of hazardous waste. If the proposed school site is within 2,000 feet of a significant disposal of hazardous waste, the LAUSD must contact the DTSC for a determination of whether the property should be considered a Hazardous Waste Property or Border Zone Property per CCR, Title 5, § 14010(t). LAUSD must comply with this requirement when siting new schools. Even though specific standards have been set regarding the distance schools are located from a significant disposal site, the PEIR will consider this issue further. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

VIII. HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY. Would the project: Potentially Significant

Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact

a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

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

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site?


VIII. HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY. Would the project: Potentially Significant

Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact

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

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

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

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

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

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

J) Cause inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

Explanation: a) Potentially Significant. Although the program would not involve specific project sites, there is a potential

for future project construction to significantly increase the amount of surface runoff and erosion. Additional runoff from the site as a result of increased paved surfaces will be evaluated in the water resources section of the PEIR. Mitigation measures, such as on-site control measures, would be incorporated into the program design as necessary to reduce potential impacts. The PEIR will identify and evaluate standard mitigation measures and potential significance thresholds that will be considered during future site-specific reviews. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

b) Less than Significant. The City of Los Angeles receives its water from three primary sources: the Los

Angeles Aqueduct (~65 percent), local groundwater (15 percent), and purchased water imported by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (20 percent). Recycled water is also a component of this water source for the city. Implementation of the proposed program would not create a substantial demand upon groundwater sources and would not substantially change the amount of groundwater pumped from local wells because the program would accommodate existing students and expected student growth within the region. A majority of the students who would benefit from this program are currently enrolled in existing LAUSD schools and are currently consuming water from similar local groundwater sources. A specific water consumption value has not been estimated yet but will be a part of the PEIR. In addition, issues regarding groundwater depth and the depth of underground structures will be addressed in the PEIR to determine if the program could have any impact on groundwater resources.

c) Potentially Significant. The proposed program could substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of a site

or area, including the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increasing the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site. The LAUSD applies mitigation measures that require collection of storm water runoff in a collection system, completion of a NPDES storm water permit, and restricting sediment flows into storm drainage systems. To further address this issue, the PEIR will identify and evaluate standard mitigation measures and potential significance thresholds that will be considered during future site-specific reviews. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

d) Potentially Significant. As noted above, the proposed program could impact stream or watercourses in the

program area. NPDES permit requirements as well as other measures will be considered in the PEIR. If necessary, mitigation measures or program design requirements will be identified for any potential for flooding impacts.


e) Potentially Significant. Depending on the location of future projects, the proposed program could 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. Program design, however, will include provisions to control surface run-off. The requirements of the NPDES and the new Standard Urban Stormwater Mitgation Plan would be considered. The PEIR will identify and evaluate standard mitigation measures and potential significance thresholds that will be considered during future site-specific reviews. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

f) Less than Significant. See comments (a) through (e) above. The proposed program could increase storm

water runoff, which could impact water quality. However, the program will incorporate NPDES permit requirements in program design and, if necessary, appropriate design measures will be recommended that would ensure impacts are less than significant. The PEIR will identify and evaluate standard design measures and potential significance thresholds that will be considered during future site-specific reviews. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

g) No Impact. No residential development is planned as part of the proposed program. Therefore, the program

would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area. h) Potentially Significant. According to CDE requirements, a school must not be sited within a flood plain

area unless the cost of mitigating the impact is reasonable. A hydrologic study may be required in areas of flooding or potential flooding. Flooding can cause significant safety concerns for students and staff. However, measures can be taken to reduce impacts from flooding such as elevating the site above flood levels, creating or improving levees, and emergency notification and evacuation procedures (CDE, 2000). The PEIR will identify and evaluate standard mitigation measures and potential significance thresholds that will be considered during future site-specific reviews. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

i) Potentially Significant. The proposed program could 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 (see [h] above). CDE requirements specify a distance of 1,500 feet from a reservoir or dam. Dams and reservoirs are monitored during storm events and measures are implemented to prevent water overflow. The PEIR will identify and evaluate standard mitigation measures and potential significance thresholds that will be considered during future site-specific reviews. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

j) Less than Significant. A seiche is a surface wave created when a body of water is shaken, usually by an

earthquake. Seiches are of concern where water storage facilities are located immediately adjacent to proposed development sites. CDE requirements specify a distance of 1,500 feet from a reservoir or dam. Dams and reservoirs are monitored during storm events and measures are implemented to prevent water overflow. A school site would need to be near the Pacific Ocean to be impacted by a tsunami. Applying the CDE siting requirements would reduce the potential of a site to be impacted by seiches, tsunamis, and mudflow. However, this issue will be assessed in more detail in the PEIR. The PEIR will also identify and evaluate standard design measures and potential significance thresholds that will be considered during future site-specific reviews. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: Potentially

Significant Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact

a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency

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

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


Explanation: a) Less than Significant. The proposed program would not divide an established community. Schools are

compatible land uses in residential and commercial areas. In preparation for Phase I, the City of Los Angeles determined the school construction program was consistent with the City’s General Plan (City of Los Angeles, 2001). Although the program would not involve school construction at this time, the program once implemented would allow for the construction of 125,000 new classroom seats in the district. To assess the land use impacts in detail, the PEIR will identify and evaluate standard design measures and potential significance thresholds that will be considered during future site-specific reviews. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

b) Less than Significant. The proposed program would support the construction of 125,000 new classroom

seats within district boundaries. While specific projects are not proposed at this time, it would provide for the construction and operation of new schools, reconstruction, and/or additions to existing campuses, small satellite academies, and co-location of schools with other community support services. These uses would be compatible with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations of local agencies. In preparation for Phase I, the City of Los Angeles determined the school construction program was consistent with the City’s General Plan (City of Los Angeles, 2001). For schools sited in other jurisdictions, a Planning Commission Report will be obtained from these other agencies. LAUSD would consider existing and proposed zoning of surrounding properties when siting a school so surrounding uses would not pose a potential health or safety risk to students or staff. The PEIR will identify and evaluate standard design measures and potential significance thresholds that will be considered during future site-specific reviews. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration

c) Less than Significant. It is not anticipated that the program would conflict with an applicable habitat

conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan. The cities within the district are highly urbanized areas where limited biological resources are expected to occur. However, this issue will be evaluated further to ensure that no habitat conservation plans or communities conservation plans would be adversely impacted by the program. The PEIR will identify and evaluate standard design measures and potential significance thresholds that will be considered during future site-specific reviews. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Potentially Significant

Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact

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

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

Explanation: a-b) Less than Significant. The proposed program may impact a known mineral resource, or a locally important

mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. The PEIR will identify and evaluate standard design measures and potential significance thresholds that will be considered during future site-specific reviews. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: Potentially

Significant Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact

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

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


XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: Potentially Significant

Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact

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

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

e) Exposure to people residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels, 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?

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

Explanation: a) Potentially Significant. The program could potentially expose persons to noise levels above the established

standards. Short-term noise could result from construction activities associated with heavy equipment. Long-term operational noise sources could include noise from increased traffic, school-ground play, and operation of mechanical equipment associated with air conditioning and other building facilities. LAUSD measures to reduce noise impacts include providing at least 72-hour advance notice of the start of construction activities to all noise sensitive uses adjacent to the project construction area, and the construction of a masonry wall along the property line of adjacent residential uses. Mitigation measures that LAUSD has adopted in the past to reduce or avoid noise impacts include: reduction of speed limits, increased insulation and/or installation of double-paned windows to classroom buildings, and placement of sound walls that guarantee exterior noise levels below thresholds. The following mitigation measures have been adopted by LAUSD to reduce noise impacts during construction:

• All equipment shall have sound control devices no less effective than those provided on the original

equipment and no equipment shall have an un-muffled exhaust.

• The contractor shall ensure that all construction be performed in accordance with LAUSD and applicable local agency noise standards. Unless a variance is granted by the local agency, no noise-intensive construction or repair work shall be performed between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on any weekday, nor before 8:00 a.m. or after 6:00 p.m. on any Saturday, nor at any time on Sundays or federal holidays.

• The contractor shall locate portable equipment as far as possible from the adjacent residents.

• The contractor shall store and maintain equipment as far as possible from the adjacent residents.

• LAUSD’s construction manager and inspector shall serve as the contact persons in the event that noise levels become disruptive to local residents.

• If found to be necessary on a case-by-case basis, the LAUSD shall direct the construction contractor to install noise curtains along the construction perimeter adjoining residential land uses.

• In the event of complaints by nearby residents, the LAUSD, at its discretion, shall monitor noise from construction activity. In the event that construction noise exceeds the specified limits, the responsible construction activity shall cease until appropriate measures are implemented.

The PEIR will identify and evaluate standard mitigation measures and potential significance thresholds that will be considered during future site-specific reviews. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

b) Potentially Significant. The proposed program through future construction activities could generate

temporary ground-borne vibration. These activities include grading and excavation of the project site, as well as heavy trucks trips to and from the site. These effects would be temporary in nature. In addition to the mitigation measures that LAUSD has adopted in the past provided in (a) above, the PEIR will identify and evaluate standard mitigation measures and potential significance thresholds that will be considered during future site-specific reviews. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.


c) Potentially Significant. The program could cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the program. The PEIR will identify and evaluate standard mitigation measures and potential significance thresholds that will be considered during future site-specific reviews. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

d) Potentially Significant. The program through future construction activities would temporarily elevate noise

levels in the vicinity of the project site [see response (a) above]. The PEIR will identify and evaluate standard mitigation measures and potential significance thresholds that will be considered during future site-specific reviews. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

e) Less than Significant. Although the program would not involve specific project sites, there is a potential for

future projects identified through this program to be sited near an airport runway. If a future site is within two miles of an existing airport runway, or a potential runway included in an airport master plan, the LAUSD Board of Education and the Department of Transportation would review the acquisition of the site, holding a public hearing prior to acquisition of the property, if necessary. To further assess this issue, the PEIR will identify and evaluate standard design measures and potential significance thresholds that will be considered during future site-specific reviews. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

f) Less than Significant. Although the program would not involve specific project sites, there is a potential for

future projects identified through this program to be sited near an air strip. If a future site is within two miles of an existing air strip, the LAUSD Board of Education and the Department of Transportation would review the acquisition of the site, holding a public hearing prior to acquisition of the property, if necessary. To further assess this issue, the PEIR will identify and evaluate standard design measures and potential significance thresholds that will be considered during future site-specific reviews. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: Potentially Significant

Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact

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

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

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

Explanation: a) Less than Significant. Although improvement of LAUSD schools could induce people to move in order to

attend better schools, the program is not expected to result in substantial population growth in the area. In addition, the program is intended to accommodate existing students and to address expected population and student enrollment growth in the region. Therefore, it would not substantially induce population growth. The PEIR will identify and evaluate standard design measures and potential significance thresholds that will be considered during future site-specific reviews. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

b-c) Less than Significant. As noted above, the proposed program is not intended to be growth-inducing or create

the need for additional housing. The intent of the project is to relieve overcrowding within LAUSD, thereby redistributing an existing student population. There is the potential that some individuals or housing would be displaced as a result of the new school construction.

Pursuant to state law, LAUSD has developed and implemented a relocation assistance program that will not

only compensate tenants and landowners for displacement, but will also proactively work with those requiring relocation on an individual basis. Under the program, LAUSD will pay for relocation and will work to find


comparable existing housing in the area. If comparable housing is not available within the tenants’ current range of affordability, the relocation assistance program will further compensate those being relocated so they can afford to relocate to better available housing.

In preparation of Phase I, LAUSD conducted a comprehensive study of the existing housing stock’s capacity

to absorb households displaced by the new school projects planned by the LAUSD (Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Altschuler, Inc., 2001). This study will be updated and documented in the PEIR. Although the proposed program may result in the displacement of housing units, this displacement is expected to have less-than-significant housing impacts because of the LAUSD’s relocation assistance program and the available housing stock as documented in the above mentioned study. However, the PEIR will identify and evaluate standard design measures and potential significance thresholds that will be considered during future site-specific reviews. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

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


Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact

i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities?

Explanation: i-v) Less than Significant. The development of additional school facilities within LAUSD could result in a

greater demand for fire and police services. LAUSD measures to reduce impacts include locating public schools convenient to public services including but not limited to fire protection, police protection, public transit and trash disposal. The LAUSD has a police department, which is primarily responsible for providing police services to their schools. The local City and County police departments serve as a backup system to the school police. In addition, each school currently has or would have an emergency plan, which sets forth the parameters to ensure the safety of the students, teachers, and other employees in the event of a natural disaster or other emergency. The appropriate public agencies will be contacted during the PEIR preparation process to determine if any impacts on public services are anticipated as a result of the proposed program.

XIV. RECREATION. Would the project: Potentially

Significant Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact

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?

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


Explanation: a) No Impact. An increase in use of recreational facilities generally results from population growth in an area.

The proposed program would not induce growth, but rather responds to the issue of overcrowded classroom conditions within LAUSD. The proposed program would not increase the demand for recreational facilities, nor eliminate any existing recreational facilities. No impacts to recreational facilities are anticipated with implementation of this program.

b) Less than Significant. The proposed program would include the addition of recreational facilities at new

school locations. Impacts would result from construction of the recreation facilities. LAUSD would use measures identified in previous responses to reduce impacts such as controlling dust during construction, limiting construction to specific times of the day, watering the construction site, and other measures (see responses in Sections III and XI). The PEIR will identify and evaluate standard design measures and potential significance thresholds that will be considered during future site-specific reviews. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: Potentially Significant

Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact

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

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

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

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

e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g.,

bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?

Explanation: a) Potentially Significant. The proposed program may cause a substantial increase in traffic or change traffic

patterns relative to existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. LAUSD design measures to reduce traffic impacts include: locating schools on secondary highways or collector streets and not on major highways wherever possible; not locating school sites on major arterial streets with heavy traffic patterns, unless mitigation of traffic hazards and a plan for the safe arrival and departure of students has been provided; providing adequate off-street parking for faculty, administration, staff, and visitors; providing adequate loading areas (drop off and pick up zones), preferably on site or on multiple sides of the school campus with curb cuts (as required), that are close to the school entry point(s), and avoid the need for double parking or use of the across-the-street loading; orienting site access patterns so they discourage the use of local residential streets by school traffic; providing adequate space for bus loading and unloading with curb cuts (as required); and providing street dedications and street improvements (including any required signal) along school site frontages in accordance with City standards. The PEIR will identify and evaluate standard mitigation measures and potential significance thresholds that will be considered during future site-specific reviews. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

b) Potentially Significant. As noted in (a), the proposed program may cause an increase in traffic depending on

the location of future school sites. School traffic could significantly impact, either cumulatively or individually, the level of service established by the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Agency, the


City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation, and the LAUSD requirements. The PEIR will identify and evaluate standard mitigation measures and potential significance thresholds that will be considered during future site-specific reviews. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

c) No Impact. The program would have no impact on air traffic patterns; it would not increase or change air

traffic patterns. d) Potentially Significant. As noted in (a), the proposed program may cause an increase in traffic, which may

lead to an increase in traffic hazards in the area. All proposed traffic improvements would be constructed to meet city traffic standards. The PEIR will identify and evaluate standard mitigation measures and potential significance thresholds that will be considered during future site-specific reviews. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

e) Potentially Significant. The proposed program may have a significant impact on emergency access to the

site. The PEIR will identify and evaluate standard mitigation measures and potential significance thresholds that will be considered during future site-specific reviews. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

f) Potentially Significant. The proposed program may have a significant impact on parking capacity if

individual projects consist of additions to existing facilities or schools planned on unique properties. The PEIR will identify and evaluate standard mitigation measures and potential significance thresholds that will be considered during future site-specific reviews. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

g) Less than Significant. The proposed program would not result in the elimination of existing bus or bicycle

facilities, which would conflict with adopted policies for alternative transportation. The proposed program is expected to better serve neighborhood school children, and the proximity of the school to the children’s residences should encourage walking or possibly bicycle riding to school and discourage the use of the automobile. Existing bus or bicycle facilities could be incorporated into the design of the school. In addition, the program is not anticipated to have an adverse effect on policies supporting the use of alternative transportation. Thus, less-than-significant impacts are anticipated. The PEIR will identify and evaluate standard design measures and potential significance thresholds that will be considered during future site-specific reviews. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: Potentially Significant

Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Explanation: a-b) Less than Significant. The proposed program would redistribute school wastewater use within the district,

and would therefore not exceed the requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. However, for programs occurring at existing campuses or facilities, the current capacity of wastewater treatment and water requirements will be impacted. LAUSD program design features to reduce impacts due to utilities and service systems include: coordinating with the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power prior to the relocation or upgrade of any water facilities to reduce to the potential for disruptions in service; use of reclaimed water during the construction process, if feasible, specifically for dust control, soil compaction, and concrete mixing; performing regular preventative maintenance on pumps, valves, piping, and tanks to minimize water loss; utilizing automatic sprinklers set to irrigate landscaping during the morning and evening hours to reduce water loss from evaporation; resetting automatic sprinkler timers to water less during cooler months and during the rainy season; and coordination with the City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Bureau of Sanitation and Bureau of Engineering prior to the relocation or upgrade of any sewer facilities to reduce the potential for disruptions in service. The PEIR will identify and evaluate standard design measures and potential significance thresholds that will be considered during future site-specific reviews. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

c) Less than Significant. The proposed program would likely require new or modified storm water drainage

facilities to accommodate a new school or expand an existing one. The PEIR will identify and evaluate standard design measures and potential significance thresholds that will be considered during future site-specific reviews. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

d) Less than Significant. Water would be provided by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. Local

water supply facilities and connections are generally provided throughout the district. Implementation of the proposed program would require connection to and supplies from the existing water supply system. Because the proposed program is intended to relieve overcrowding of existing area schools, district-wide water use would not significantly increase compared to existing water use levels. However, water use could shift from one jurisdiction to another. Therefore, no significant increase in water consumption is expected due to construction and operation of the proposed program. No new off-site systems or new entitlements would be required. The PEIR will identify and evaluate standard design measures and potential significance thresholds that will be considered during future site-specific reviews. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

e-g) Less than Significant. The LAUSD will comply with all local, state, and federal requirements for integrating

waste management (e.g., recycling) and solid waste disposal. No impacts resulting from compliance with federal, state, and local solid waste regulations are anticipated. Program implementation is expected to result in less-than-significant impacts to wastewater treatment and landfill capacity. The PEIR will identify and evaluate standard design measures and potential significance thresholds that will be considered during future site-specific reviews. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

XVII. MANDATORY FINDING OF SIGNIFICANCE. Potentially

Significant Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact

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?

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.)

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


a) Potentially Significant. Because of the highly urbanized nature of the communities and cities with the district, the program is not expected to impact biological resources or sensitive habitats. Protected trees may need to be displaced but this removal or move would occur consistent with applicable local agency tree removal ordinances. The program, through future site construction, has the potential to significantly impact historic and cultural resources. The PEIR will identify and evaluate standard mitigation measures and potential significance thresholds that will be considered during future site-specific reviews. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

b) Potentially Significant. The proposed program could potentially result in cumulative impacts to traffic, air

quality, noise and other issue areas. A key benefit of this PEIR will be to evaluate the program as a whole and consider its impacts in combination with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects. However, the PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

c) Potentially Significant. Depending on where specific projects are sited, the program could result in adverse

impacts to human beings, especially from cumulative affects. Therefore, the PEIR will also evaluate all environmental issues discussed in this Initial Study, whether significant or not, because cumulative impacts may cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The PEIR will not attempt to identify or evaluate site-specific impacts, which are too speculative for consideration.

XVIII. REFERENCES. CDE (California Department of Education), 2000. School Site Selection and Approval Guide. Prepared by

School Facilities Planning Division, California Department of Education. City of Los Angeles, 2001. Letter to Mr. Roy Romer, Superintendent of Schools regarding the state mandated

report regarding the LAUSD Construction Program from Con Howe, City of Los Angeles Director of Planning. September 25.

DOC (Department of Conservation), 2003. CA Dept. of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection.

Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program. 2000 Los Angeles County GIS Data. Website Accessed April: www.consrv.ca.gov/DLRP/fmmp/map_products/index.htm.

Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. 2001. Capacity of the Housing Stock to Absorb Households Displaced by

New School Projects. Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. July 19. LAUSD (Los Angeles Unified School District). 2003a. Fingertip Facts 2002-2003. LAUSD Website Accessed

April. www.lausd.k-12.ca.us/.. _____. 2003b. Strategic Execution Plan. January _____. 2003c. 11 Local Districts Map of the “New” LAUSD. Website Accessed April:

www.lausd.k12.ca.us/lausd/new/announce/superintendent_search/11districts.html. _____. 2000. Master Plan Update. June 29. _____. 1998. Facilities Master Plan for Construction. Building for our Future. Presentation to the Board of

Education. May 4.


XIX. LIST OF PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(d)(6), Table XIX-1 provides a listing of the persons that prepared, or participated in the preparation of, this Initial Study, and each team member’s role.

Table XIX-1 List of Preparers & Reviewers Name Project Role

Lead Agency Reviewers Nicole Cobleigh LAUSD CEQA Project Manager Cecilia Masson LAUSD CEQA Program Manager Brad Hogin Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart

CEQA Consultant: Aspen Environmental Group Sandra Alarcón-Lopez Project Manager, Project Description, Mandatory Findings of

Significance, Land Use and Planning, and other issue areas Lisa Blewitt Noise, Air Quality, Transportation, and other issue areas Judy Spicer Document Production Coordinator Debra Matsumoto Editor Katie Simpson Graphics

APPENDIX B.

MEETING NOTICES

Scoping Meeting NoticesAdvertisementsPress Releases

APPENDIX C.

MEETING HANDOUTS

LAUSD NEW SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM EIR - ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY

May/June 2003

ACROYNMS CEQA - California Environmental Quality Act EIR – Environmental Impact Report IS – Initial Study LAUSD – Los Angeles Unified School District

NOP – Notice of Preparation Program EIR – Program Environmental Impact Report OEHS – Office of Environmental Health and Safety

GLOSSARY California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA requires public agencies to consider the environmental implications of their actions and provides guidance on how to evaluate and mitigate impacts. Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts occur when two or more individual effects increase or compound environmental impacts. District Boundary. The district boundary includes the City of Los Angeles, all or parts of 25 other cities, and the County of Los Angeles. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR). An environmental impact assessment document prepared in accordance with the CEQA. This document has a 45-day public review period. Environmental Issue Areas. The Program EIR will consider 16 environmental issue areas: traffic; air quality; noise; biological resources; cultural and historical resources; earth resources including geology, soils and mineral resources; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; land use and planning including recreation and agricultural resources; aesthetics; population and housing; and public services and utilities. Final Program EIR. The Final Program EIR includes any changes to the Draft Program EIR, response to comments, and the mitigation monitoring program. Both the Draft and the Final Program EIR will be submitted to the Board of Education for certification. Initial Study (IS). Preliminary environmental analysis used to determine whether a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration or a Program EIR is necessary for the New School Construction Program. Less-than-Significant Impact. An impact that would cause no substantial adverse change in the environment. Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measure(s) Incorporated. An impact that would not result in a substantial adverse impact on the environment as a result of mitigation being incorporated.

Local Districts. The district is divided into eleven local districts A through K. Each local district is represented by a local district superintendent. Measure K. Local bond measure passed in November 2002 that provides $3.3 billon for new schools and repair of aging classrooms. Mitigation Measure. A measure applied to a project that would avoid, reduce, or repair a program impact. Mitigation Monitoring Plan. Included as part of the Final Program EIR, the mitigation monitoring plan will list all required mitigation measures and will specify when the measure needs to be applied (e.g. before, during, or after construction), and the agency or district department responsible for verifying compliance. Notice of Preparation (NOP). A notice sent to regulatory agencies stating that an EIR will be prepared. Preferred Alternative. Alternative selected by the LAUSD considering all environmental and economic information associated with the program. Scoping Meeting. Public meeting held to inform the public about the program and to collect and incorporate public input into the Program EIR content. Significant Unavoidable Impact. An impact that would have 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. Subregions or Areas. The Program EIR will refer to subregions: Valley, Central, and South. These subregions combine local districts, which was done for internal district management purposes only and could be adjusted in the future.

��

�

�

�

�

��

�

�

�

�

��

�

� � ��

�

� �

�

�

�

�

�

��

�

� �

� ��

�

��

�

�

� ��

� �

�

�

� �

� ��

��

�

�

��

��

� �

� ��

��

� ��

��

� ��

� ��

��

��

� �

�

�

�

�

��

�

�

�

��

�

�

�

��

�

�

� ��

�

��

��

��

� �

�

� ��

��

��

� �

�

� �

�

�

��

�

�

�

��

�

��

�

��

��

�

�

� �

��

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

��

�

�

�

�

��

�

�

�

�

��

��

�

�

�

��

� ��

��

�

�

�

��

�

�

� ��

�

� � �

��

��

�

� �

�

�

�

��

�

�

��

��

��

��

� �

��

��

��

� ��

��

� � �

��

� �

�

�

�

��

�

� ��

� ��

��

�

��

� ��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

� �

� �

�

� ��

�

��

��

��

� ��

�

��

�

� �

��

�

�

��

��

� � �

� �

��

�

� �

��

�

�

�

�

�

��

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

�

�

��

�

�

�

�

�

��

�

�

��

��

�

�

�

��

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

��

�

�

�

� �

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

��

��

��

� �

� �

� ��

� ��

��

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

� � ��

�

��

��

� ��

��

�

��

��

� ��

�

� �

�

�

�

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

��

� ��

� �

��

�

��

�

�

��

� �

�

�

� � �

�

��

�

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

�

�

�

� �

�

�

�

�

��

�

�

�

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

�

�

� �

�

��

��

��

�

� ��

�

�

��

��

�

�

�

��

��

��

��

�

��

�

��

��

�

��

��

�

�

��

��

�

�

�

� �

��

��

�

��

��

�

�

�

��

�

�

�

� ��

�

� �

��

�

�

�

�

�

��

�

�

�

� ��

�

�

��

��

�

�

�

�

�

� �

��

�

��

�

�

�

��

�

�

�

��

�

� �

�

�

��

� �

�

�

�

��

� � �

�

��

�

��

��

�

�

��

� ��

� ��

� �

��

�

��

�

��

�

�

��

�

�

� � ��

�

��

�

� �

� �

��

�

��

� ��

� � �

�

�

�

�

�

� ��

�

��

�

�

��

�

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

�

�

�

�

�

� �

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

��

�� !�� "��!�#��$��%�� &�� '��(�$��

��!�$��#�� '�� )��*��#��

+ ��

�

��

�

��

��

��,��*��-��./��,��*��-��00��,��.��*��-��,��0.�*��-��,��*��-��

*1��*�-11#1#� 121$1-��3�*�45526%�7$��3��1-�1�� $7##21�*�4552� 4784�*�4552

� 4784�*�4552� $7##21�*�4552� 121$1-��3�*�45526%�7$��3��1-�1�

*1��*��9�72�'21

��

�

�

�

�

��

��

�

�

��

�

�

� � ��

��

�

� �

�

�

�

�

�

��

�

� �

� �

��

��

��

��

�

� ��

� �

�

�

� �

� ��

��

��

�

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

� ��

��

��

��

�

��

��

� �

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

�

�

�

��

�

�

� ��

�

��

��

�

�

� �

�

� ��

��

��

� �

�

��

�

�

��

�

�

�

��

�

�

��

�

��

��

�

�

� �

��

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

��

�

�

�

�

��

�

�

�

�

��

�

��

�

�

�

��

� ��

��

�

�

�

�

��

�

�

� ��

�

� � �

�

��

��

�

� �

�

�

�

��

�

�

��

��

��

��

�

� �

��

��

��

�

� ��

��

� ��

� � �

��

� �

�

�

�

��

�

��

��

��

��

�

� ��

� ��

��

��

��

�

�

�

� � ��

��

��

��

� �

� �

�

� ��

�

� �

� �

�

��

� ��

� � � �

��

� ��

�

� ��

�

� �

�

�

�

�

��

��

� � �

� �

��

�

� �

��

�

�

�

�

��

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

�

�

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

�

�

�

�

�

��

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

� �

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

�

�

�

� �

��

� �

� �

� ��

�

� ��

��

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

��

�

��

��

��

�

��

�

�

�

�

�

� ��

� ��

��

�

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

�

�

��

�

��

�

��

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

�

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

� �

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

�

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

�

�

�

�

�

� �

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

�

�

�

��

� � �

�

��

�

��

��

� �

�

��

�

�

�

��

� �

�

�

� �

��

�

�

�

�

� �

�

�

�

� �

�

��

�

��

��

�

��

�

�

� �

�

�

�

�

�

��

� ��

� �

�

� ��

�

� �

��

�

� �

�

�

�

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

� ��

��

�� !"�� ##��!�� #!��

��

��

��

�

��

�

�$%&'()*��+�,,�()*��'-� �*�(./$'0��($.1$.��(.� *�'�(.(��*�%'$'(��'&%'$%�'�&$/�*�

/$,,$2(.)$2.�'��3%%,(� 3. �',(1�.��. 0�&.$�4�'�%'$ 31�� 51�%��,(1�.�� 4&�()(��,��%�'$ 31��6�*$0��'$�7��%

%'�%�'� 4&��'%,�..(.)�. ��0$)'�%*(1��'�.1*8�1(,(�(��'-(1��(-(�($.

93,&��

May/June 2003May/June 2003

Program Environmental Impact ReportProgram Environmental Impact ReportPublic Public ScopingScoping MeetingMeeting

Los Angeles Unified School District Los Angeles Unified School District

“Planning for Our Children’s Future”“Planning for Our Children’s Future”

Meeting ObjectivesMeeting Objectives

• Present information on LAUSD’s multi-phased program to deliver new school facilities

• Discuss program goals and objectives to provide classroom seats

• Introduce the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

2

Meeting ObjectivesMeeting Objectives

• Provide an overview of the CEQA process

• Explain the Program Environmental Impact Report ( Program EIR)

• Gain input from community on what environmental issues should be analyzed

3

Program GoalProgram Goal

LAUSD’s long-range goal is to:

4

• Give all students the ability to attend a

neighborhood school

• Return all schools to a 180-day schedule

• Operate on a two-semester calendar

Program ObjectivesProgram Objectives

Objectives to achieve goal include:

5

• Provide classroom space for anticipated enrollment growth

• Implement class-size reduction

• Allow special education students to attend schools in their neighborhoods

• Return to pre-1991 classroom norms

LAUSD’sLAUSD’s New School New School Construction ProgramConstruction Program

• Need over 200,000 additional classroom seats

6

• Phase I is underway and will provide 78,000 new seats

• Phase II and future phases will provide an additional 125,000 new seats

LAUSD’sLAUSD’s New SchoolNew SchoolConstruction ProgramConstruction Program

• With approval of Measure K, LAUSD proposes to implement Phase II to provide 35,000 new seats district-wide

7

• One or more future phases would provide the remaining 90,000 new seats

• Site-specific Phase II projects have not yet been identified

District BoundariesDistrict BoundariesNew Seats by Area and Local DistrictNew Seats by Area and Local District

89,500-94,00035,310TOTAL

31,000 –35,90011,330G, I, J, KSouth

26,500 –27,70012,090D, E, F, HCentral

29,000 –30,20011,890A, B, CValley

Future Phases

Phase II

Local DistrictArea

8

LAUSD’sLAUSD’s New SchoolNew SchoolConstruction ProgramConstruction Program

Future projects could include:• Constructing new schools

• Reconstructing existing campuses

• Adding to existing campuses

• Providing small satellite academies

• Sharing location with other community support services

• Retrofitting existing non-school buildings for school use

9

What is CEQA?What is CEQA?

CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act

10

• Informs decisionmakers and the public of potential environmental impacts of a project

• Identifies ways to avoid or reduce potential environmental damage

• Maintains or enhances quality of life for students, teachers and surrounding neighborhoods

Overview of CEQA ProcessOverview of CEQA Process

• Publish Notice of Preparation and Initial Study– Scoping Meetings (public input)

11

• Publish Draft Program EIR– 45-day Public Review Period (public input)– Public Meetings (public input)

• Publish Final Program EIR with Responses to Comments

• Certify the Program EIR– Board of Education Meetings (public input)

Initial Study FindingsInitial Study FindingsThe program may have a significant impact to:The program may have a significant impact to:

• Aesthetics• Air Quality• Cultural Resources• Geology and Soils• Hazards and

Hazardous Materials

• Hydrology and Water Quality

• Noise• Transportation and

Traffic

12

Initial Study FindingsInitial Study FindingsThe program is expected to have a The program is expected to have a

lessless--thanthan--significant impact to:significant impact to:

• Agricultural Resources• Biological Resources• Land Use and Planning• Mineral Resources

• Population and Housing• Public Services• Recreation• Utilities and Service

Systems

13

Program Environmental Impact Program Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR)Report (Program EIR)

• Identify potential environmental impacts from the entire New School Construction program

14

• Identify ways to avoid or reduce potential program-wide environmental impacts

• Provide analysis of cumulative program impacts and program alternatives

• Provide a consistent baseline for future environmental analyses for individual projects

Program EIR ContentProgram EIR Content

• Program Description- Program Need- Goals and Objectives

• Environmental Setting

• Applicable Regulations

• Environmental Impacts- 16 Issue Areas- Cumulative Analysis- Environmental Justice

• Program Alternatives

15

Program ScheduleProgram Schedule

• Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study (IS) Review Period

• Public Scoping Meetings

• Publish Draft Program EIR

• Public Review Period

• Draft Program EIR Meetings

• Publish Final Program EIR

• Certification of Program EIR

May 5 to June 3, 2003

May 20 to June 3, 2003

September/October 2003

November 2003

October - December 2003

January 2004

February/March 2004

16

Your input will make a Your input will make a difference in difference in

““Planning for Our Planning for Our Children’s Future”Children’s Future”

17

Mayo/junio de 2003Mayo/junio de 2003

Informe sobre el programa de impacto Informe sobre el programa de impacto en el medio ambienteen el medio ambiente

Reunión Pública sobre el AlcanceReunión Pública sobre el Alcance

LAUSD LAUSD

Planear el Futuro de Planear el Futuro de Nuestros NiñosNuestros Niños

Objetivos de la ReuniónObjetivos de la Reunión

• Presentar información sobre el programa multifacético de LAUSD de construcción de nuevas instalaciones escolares

• Hablar sobre las metas y objetivos para crear nuevos asientos escolares

• Presentar la Ley de Calidad Ambiental de California (CEQA, California Environmental Quality Act)

2


• Presentar una perspectiva general sobre el proceso de CEQA

• Explicar el programa de impacto en el medio ambiente (programa EIR)

• Reunir la participación de la comunidad acerca de cuáles temas ambientales deben ser analizados

3


El objetivo a largo plazo de LAUSD es brindar a todos los estudiantes la oportunidad de asistir a escuelas en sus propias vecindades y volver al calendario escolar tradicional de dos semestres de 180 días

4


Los objetivos para lograr la meta incluyen:• Brindar espacio de clases para el crecimiento de

inscripción anticipado

• Implementar reducciones en el tamaño de las clases

• Permitir que los estudiantes de educación especial asistan a escuelas en sus vecindarios

• Retornar a las normas de clase anteriores a 1991

5

Programa de Construcción Programa de Construcción de Nuevas Instalaciones de Nuevas Instalaciones

Escolares de LAUSDEscolares de LAUSD

• Se necesitan más de 200,000 asientos escolares adicionales

• Se está llevando a cabo la Fase I que proporcionará 78,000 asientos nuevos

• La Fase II y otras futuras fases proporcionarán 125,000 nuevos asientos adicionales

6


Escolares de LAUSDEscolares de LAUSD• Con la aprobación de la Medida K, LAUSD

propone implementar la Fase II para proporcionar 35,000 asientos nuevos en todo el distrito

• Una o varias fases futuras proporcionarán los 90,000 nuevos asientos restantes

• Aún no se han identificado proyectos de Fase II en sitios específicos

7

Límites de DistritosLímites de DistritosNuevos asientos por área y distrito localNuevos asientos por área y distrito local

89,500-94,00035,310TOTAL

31,000 –35,90011,330G, I, J, KSouth

(sur)

26,500 –27,70012,090D, E, F, HCentral

29,000 –30,20011,890A, B, CValley

Futuras FasesFase IIDistrito

LocalÁrea

8


Escolares de LAUSDEscolares de LAUSDEntre los futuros proyectos se puede incluir:• Construcción de nuevas instalaciones escolares

• Reconstrucción de recintos existentes

• Incorporación de nuevos espacios en recintos existentes

• Proporcionar pequeñas academias satélite

• Compartir instalaciones con otros servicios de recursos de la comunidad

• Adaptación de edificios de usos no relacionados con la educación para utilizarlos como escuelas

9

¿Qué es la CEQA?¿Qué es la CEQA?

CEQA = Ley de Calidad Ambiental de California

• Informa a las personas a cargo de la toma de decisiones y al público en general sobre los posibles impactos de un proyecto en el medio ambiente

• Identifica formas de evitar o reducir el posible daño al medio ambiente

• Conserva o mejora la calidad de vida de estudiantes, maestros y vecindarios de la zona

10

Perspectiva General del Proceso Perspectiva General del Proceso de CEQAde CEQA

• Publicar el Anuncio de Preparación y Estudio Inicial– Reuniones de sondeo (opinión pública)

• Publicar el esquema del Programa EIR– Período de revisión pública de 45 días (opinión pública)– Reuniones públicas (opinión pública)

• Publicar el Programa EIR final con respuestas a los comentarios

• Certificar el Programa EIR– Reuniones del Consejo de Educación (opinión pública)

11

Conclusiones del Estudio InicialConclusiones del Estudio InicialEl programa puede presentar un impacto El programa puede presentar un impacto

importante en los siguientes puntos:importante en los siguientes puntos:

• Estética• Calidad del aire• Recursos culturales• Geología y suelos• Peligros y materiales

peligrosos

• Hidrología y calidad del agua

• Ruidos• Transporte y tránsito

12

Conclusiones del Estudio InicialConclusiones del Estudio InicialSe espera que el programa tenga un impacto Se espera que el programa tenga un impacto menos importante en los siguientes puntos:menos importante en los siguientes puntos:

• Recursos de agricultura• Recursos biológicos• Planificación y uso de

tierras• Recursos minerales

• Población y viviendas• Servicios públicos• Recreación• Sistemas de servicios y

utilidades

13

Programa de Impacto en el Medio Programa de Impacto en el Medio Ambiente (Programa EIR)Ambiente (Programa EIR)

• Identificar posibles impactos en el medio ambiente de todo el programa de Construcción de Nuevas Instalaciones escolares

• Identificar formas de evitar o reducir los posibles impactos en el medio ambiente de todo el programa

• Brindar un análisis de impactos acumulativos del programa y alternativas del programa

• Brindar una referencia consistente para análisis ambientales futuros de proyectos individuales

14

Contenido del Programa EIRContenido del Programa EIR

• Descripción del programa- Necesidad del programa- Metas y objetivos

• Marco ambiental

• Regulaciones pertinentes

• Impactos en el medio ambiente- 16 áreas a tratar- Análisis acumulativo- Justicia ambiental

• Alternativas del programa

15

Calendario del ProgramaCalendario del Programa• Período de Revisión del Estudio

Inicial (IS) y Anuncio de Preparación (NOP)

• Reuniones públicas de sondeo

• Publicación del esquema del Programa EIR

• Período de Revisión Pública

• Reuniones del esquema del Programa EIR

• Publicación del Programa EIR final

• Certificación del Programa EIR

5 de mayo a 3 de junio de 2003

20 de mayo a 3 de junio de 2003

Septiembre/Octubre de 2003

Noviembre de 2003

Octubre - Diciembre de 2003

Enero de 2004

Febrero/Marzo de 200416

Su participación marcará Su participación marcará una gran diferencia en una gran diferencia en Planear el Futuro de Planear el Futuro de

Nuestros NiñosNuestros Niños

17

APPENDIX D.

COMMENT LETTERS

INDEX OF WRITTEN COMMENTS

State Agencies

State Clearinghouse, Scott Morgan, Associate Planner

Department of Transportation - District 7, Regional Planning, Stephen Buswell, IGR/CEQA Branch Chief

Regional Agencies

South Coast Air Quality Management District, Steve Smith, Ph.D, Program Supervisor, CEQA Section

Southern California Association of Governments, Jeffrey M. Smith, Senior Regional Planner, Intergovernmental Review

Local

City of Downey, Mark Sellheim, Principal Planner

City of Los Angeles, Department of Transportation, Allyn Rifkin, Principal Transportation Engineer

City of Montebello, Antonio Gardea, Associate Planner

City of Monterey Park, Ray Hamada, Planning Manager

City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Kit Fox, Senior Planner

City of Vernon, Samuel Kevin Wilson, P.E., Director of Community Services and Water

Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) of the City of Los Angeles, Pauline Lewicki, Principal Planner

County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, James A. Noyes, Director of Public Works and Rod H. Kubomoto, Assistant Deputy Director

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Jose A. Porras, Jr., Engineer of Harbor District

Community Organizations

Banning/Wrigley Historic Neighborhood, Simie Seaman, HPOZ Board Member

Coalition for a Safe Environment (“The Wilmington Coalition”), Jesse N. Marquez, Executive Director

Los Angeles Conservancy, Catherine Barrier, Preservation Advocate

Individuals

Scott M. Folsom

Arlene C. Zimmer

appendix a. scoping report · 2018. 12. 19. · belvedere middle school la academy middle school 11...

Documents