HOOVER HIGH SCHOOL PRACTICE FIELD LIGHTING PROJECT Initial Study/Negative Declaration

GLENDALE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

HOOVER HIGH SCHOOL PRACTICE FIELD LIGHTING

PROJECT Initial Study/Negative Declaration

Draft

Prepared for Glendale Unified School District

223 North Jackson Street Glendale, California 92106

Prepared by

Atkins 12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430

Los Angeles, California 90025

June 2012

Glendale Unified School District Hoover High School Practice Field Lighting Project

iii

CONTENTS Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1

Legal Authority ............................................................................................................................................. 4 Public Review ................................................................................................................................................ 8

Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .................................................................................. 11

Determination ................................................................................................................................. 11

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ........................................................................................... 12

Environmental Issues ..................................................................................................................... 13 I. Aesthetics ....................................................................................................................................... 13 II. Agriculture/Forestry Resources ................................................................................................. 32 III. Air Quality ..................................................................................................................................... 32 IV. Biological Resources ..................................................................................................................... 38 V. Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................................ 39 VI. Geology/Soils ............................................................................................................................... 40 VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................................ 43 VIII. Hazards/Hazardous Materials .................................................................................................... 45 IX. Hydrology/Water Quality ........................................................................................................... 50 X. Land Use/Planning ...................................................................................................................... 53 XI. Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................................ 55 XII. Noise ............................................................................................................................................... 55 XIII. Population/Housing .................................................................................................................... 58 XIV. Public Services ............................................................................................................................... 58 XV. Recreation ...................................................................................................................................... 59 XVI. Transportation/Traffic ................................................................................................................ 59 XVII. Utilities/Service Systems ............................................................................................................. 61 XVIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance .......................................................................................... 64

References....................................................................................................................................... 65

Appendices Appendix A Air Quality CalEEMod Modeling Data Appendix B Greenhouse Gas Emissions CalEEMod Modeling Data

Contents


iv

Figures Figure 1 Project Site Location Map .................................................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2 Aerial View of Proposed Project Site and Vicinity ..................................................................................... 5 Figure 3 Proposed Project Site Plan ................................................................................................................................. 7 Figure 4 Typical Light Poles and Fixtures ...................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 5a Public Viewing Point Location Map ............................................................................................................. 14 Figure 5b Public Viewing Points in Project Vicinity .................................................................................................... 15 Figure 6 Field Lighting Cross Section ............................................................................................................................ 17 Figure 7 Illumination Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 8 Photometric Levels at Property Line—Field Lights ................................................................................ 23 Figure 9 Photometric Levels at Property Line—Track Lights ............................................................................... 25 Figure 10 Photometric Levels at Residential Uses on Olmstead Drive—Field Lights ..................................... 27 Figure 11 Photometric Levels at Residential Uses on Olmstead Drive—Track Lights .................................... 29

Tables Table 1 Estimated Peak Daily Construction Emissions in Pounds per Day .................................................... 35 Table 2 Estimated Annual GHG Emissions ............................................................................................................. 44


1

INTRODUCTION This checklist is to be completed for all projects that are subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The information, analysis, and conclusions contained in the checklist form the basis for deciding whether an environmental impact report (EIR), a negative declaration (ND), or a mitigated negative declaration (MND) is to be prepared.

1. Project title:

Hoover High School Practice Field Lighting Project

2. Lead agency name and address:

Glendale Unified School District (GUSD) 223 North Jackson Street

Glendale, CA 91206

3. Contact person and phone number:

Eva Rae Lueck, Chief Business & Financial Officer 818.241.3111

4. Project location:

Practice Field on the Hoover High School (HHS) campus located at: 651 Glenwood Road Glendale, CA 91202

(refer to Figure 1 [Project Site Location Map])

5. Project sponsor’s name and address:

Glendale Unified School District

6. General plan designation:

Public/ Semi-Public

7. Zoning:

Low Density Residential (R1)

8. Description of project (describe the whole action involved, including, but not limited to, later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation):

The proposed project site is the existing practice field area of the Hoover High School (HHS) campus located at 651 Glenwood Road in the City of Glendale. The location of the project is shown in Figure 1. The project site consists of an oval grass field and a dirt running track, confined by walls, fences, or structures on all sides. The project site is bound by Olmstead Drive to the north, located at elevation approximately 15 feet above the project site, the HHS baseball field to the east, the HHS locker rooms

0 yds 200 400 600 800

0 mi 2 4 6

PROJECTLOCATION

PROJECTLOCATION

Figure 1Project Site Location Map

1000

2745

7 | H

oove

r Hig

h S

choo

l Fie

ld L

ight

s In

itial

Stu

dy/N

egat

ive

Dec

lara

tion

Source: Microsoft Streets and Trip, basemap (2011); Atkins (2012). SCALE IN YARDS

Introduction


3

and gymnasiums to the south, and single-family residences to the west. Refer to Figure 2 (Aerial View of Proposed Project Site and Vicinity) for a depiction of the existing practice field and surroundings.

The project site is used by HHS for physical education purposes; high school sports team practices; soccer games, and track meets. The HHS sports teams that practice on the project site include soccer, football, and track and field. The practice field is typically used by the school between the hours of 6:00 AM and dusk on school days and 4:00 PM to dusk during the summer. In addition to school use of the practice field, outside sporting groups have been individually permitted by Glendale Unified School District (GUSD) to use the practice field on weekends generally between the hours of 11:30 AM and 6:00 PM on Saturdays and 11:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Sundays. The absence of field lighting on the practice field prevents school uses of the practice field from occurring in the evening hours. However, permitted outside athletic groups occasionally use two, temporary, gas-powered field lights stored on the project site, although the HHS has indicated that the field lighting has not been used for a considerable amount of time.1

The proposed project involves the installation and operation of four, 90-foot-tall light poles along the perimeter of the running track and the development of a 1,500-square-foot (sf) one-story restroom and storage facility. Figure 3 (Proposed Project Site Plan) illustrates the location of the proposed field lighting fixtures and restroom/storage facility would be located on the project site. Each of the light poles would be mounted with eight light fixtures utilizing 1,500-watt (1.56 kilowatts per hour [kW/h]) Musco Z lamps and equipped with Light-Structure Green (LSG) visors. Figure 4 (Typical Light Poles and Fixtures) illustrates the appearance of light poles and fixtures similar to those proposed for the proposed project. The design of the proposed field lighting was selected in order to minimize spill light onto adjacent uses. The 1,500 sf restroom and storage facility would include restroom, storage, electrical, and custodial uses. The restroom would be developed with six sinks, seven toilets, three urinals, one drinking fountain, and one mop sink.

The proposed project would not introduce new uses to the project site, rather the proposed project would allow for the extended use of the project site by existing uses. Specifically, operation of field lighting would allow for HHS sports team practices that currently conclude at dusk be extended approximately 30 minutes to 2 hours, depending on the time of year, in order for practice to be properly concluded and athletes to depart in a safe manner. Night time games for the HHS football and soccer teams would not occur with implementation of the proposed project due to the absence of adequate locker facilities and spectator seating for a visiting team. However, track meets that extend into the evening hours may occur at the project site. Use of the proposed field lighting by outside sports group would require a Facilities Use Permit issued by GUSD, similar to existing conditions that would establish the allowable hours of use. Additionally, the practice field and track would continue to be available to local residents for informal recreational uses (i.e., walking, jogging uses), similar to the existing conditions. During these times, the District would illuminate the track for increased user safety, but the practice field would not be lit. In all cases, it is anticipated that the field lights would not be in use beyond 9:00 PM. The proposed restroom and storage facility would be used by the school and permitted practice field users, and locked from general public use when the practice field. Additionally, the existing

1 Mark Rubio, Personal communication with Assistant Principle, Hoover High School (March 29, 2012).

Introduction


4

chain-link fence along Olmstead Street would be enhanced with an 8-foot-high green screen in order to diffuse the field lighting from the neighbors located to the north across Olmstead Street.

9. Surrounding land uses and setting (briefly describe the project’s surroundings):

Overall, the project site is surrounded by athletic facilities on the HHS campus, streets, and single-family residential neighborhoods. Specific land uses surrounding the project site include the following:

■ North: A retaining wall, Olmstead Drive, and single-family residences, fronting Olmstead Drive. ■ East: Baseball diamond on the HHS campus, and single-family residences across School Street

(facing away from School Street) ■ South: Two Gymnasiums, lock rooms, bleachers, and other facilities on the HHS campus ■ West: Single-family residences (facing away from project site)

Refer to Figure 1 for a map of the project which illustrates the location of the project site in relation to surrounding land uses and Figure 2 for an aerial view of the project site and the surrounding land uses.

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):

State of California ■ Division of the State Architect (Approval of Construction Drawings) Regional Agencies ■ Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES permit; construction storm water

run-off permits)

LEGAL AUTHORITY

This ND for the proposed project has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(c) lists the following purposes of an Initial Study:

(1) Provide the lead agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an EIR or negative declaration;

(2) Enable an applicant or lead agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a negative declaration;

(3) Assist in the preparation of an EIR, if one is required … (4) Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project; (5) Provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a negative declaration that a

project will not have a significant effect on the environment; (6) Eliminate unnecessary EIRs; (7) Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project.

According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 (Decision to Prepare a Negative or Mitigated Negative Declaration) of Article 6 (Negative Declaration Process):

A public agency shall prepare or have prepared a proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration for a project subject to CEQA when:

(a) The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, or

Olmstead Dr.

Glenwood Rd..

Virg

inia

Ave

.

Scho

ol S

t.

Hoover High School

Mark Keppel Elementary School

Eleanor J. Toll Middle School

Figure 2Aerial View of Proposed Project Site and Vicinity

1000

2745

7 | H

oove

r Hig

h S

choo

l Fie

ld L

ight

s In

itial

Stu

dy/N

egat

ive

Dec

lara

tion

Source: GoogleEarthPro (2012); Atkins (2012). NOT TO SCALE

S4 S3

S2S1

LEGEND

New bathroom

Standard light fixtureS#

Figure 3Proposed Project Site Plan

1000

2745

7 | H

oove

r Hig

h S

choo

l Fie

ld L

ight

s In

itial

Stu

dy/N

egat

ive

Dec

lara

tion

Source: Osborn (January 2012). NOT TO SCALE

Introduction


8

(b) The initial study identifies potentially significant effects, but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before

a proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and

(2) There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.

The GUSD has prepared an IS to determine the level of environmental review necessary for the proposed project. Based on the analysis in the IS, it has been determined that all project-related environmental impacts are less than significant; a Negative Declaration (ND) will meet the requirements of CEQA.

PUBLIC REVIEW

In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, a 30-day public review period for this ND commenced on June 4, 2012, and will conclude on July 5, 2012. The Draft ND has specifically been distributed to interested or involved public agencies, organizations, and private individuals for review. In addition, the Draft ND is available for general public review at:

Glendale Unified School District 223 N. Jackson Street Glendale, CA 91206

Hoover High School 651 Glenwood Road Glendale, CA 91202

The GUSD will hold a Community Meeting to provide information regarding the proposed project on Wednesday June 20, 2012, at 6:30 PM in the Parent Meeting Room—12101 on the Hoover High School Campus, 651 Glenwood Road, Glendale, CA 91202.

During the public review period, the public will have an opportunity to provide written comments on the information contained within this Draft ND. The public comments on the Draft ND and responses to public comments will be incorporated into the Final ND. The GUSD Board of Education will use the Final ND for all environmental decisions related to this project.

In reviewing the Draft ND, affected public agencies and interested members of the public should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing potential project impacts on the environment, and ways in which the significant effects of the project are proposed to be avoided or mitigated. Comments on the Draft ND should be submitted in writing prior to the end of the 30-day public review period and must be postmarked by July 5, 2012. Please submit written comments to:

Eva Rae Lueck Chief Business & Financial Officer GUSD 223 N. Jackson Street Glendale, CA 91206 818.241.3111

Figure 4Typical Light Poles and Fixtures

1000

2745

7 | H

oove

r Hig

h S

choo

l Fie

ld L

ight

s In

itial

Stu

dy/N

egat

ive

Dec

lara

tion

Source: MUSCO (2012).

Environmental Factors Potentially Affected


11

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

Aesthetics Agriculture/Forestry Resources Air Quality

Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils

Greenhouse Gas Emissions 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

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 project proponent. 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 “less than significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

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 or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

June 4, 2012 Signature Date

Richard M. Sheehan Superintendent Name Title

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts


12

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

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

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

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

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

5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the

scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.

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

6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

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

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

9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question. b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

SECTION I. Aesthetics

Potentially Significant Impact

Less Than Significant w/Mitigation Incorporated

Less-Than-Significant Impact

No Impact


13

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

I. AESTHETICS

Would the project:

(a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

Discussion

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would result in the installation of four 90-foot light poles and the construction of one-story restroom/storage facility on the existing HHS practice field. Project elements would be visible from Olmsted Avenue and the streets that intersect Olmstead Avenue in front the project site. From a limited number of vantage points on Olmsted Avenue distant views of the downtown Los Angeles skyline are available beyond the project site and the existing development on the HHS campus. Additionally, from the bleachers adjacent to the project site looking north across the project site, views of the Verdugo Mountains are available beyond the project site and single-family homes. From most public viewing areas, including the four representative public viewing points shown in Figure 5b (Public Viewing Points in Project Vicinity), the publically available views from Olmstead Drive and School Street are dominated by the existing HHS Campus practice field and the school buildings, while the Verdugo Mountains are prominently visible from the bleachers. A map identifying the location of each public viewing point is provided as Figure 5a (Public Viewing Point Location Map)

The City of Glendale General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element do no designate these views as scenic vistas.2

Although project elements would be visible from the surrounding neighborhood, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the obstruction or degradation of existing scenic views. As shown in Figure 6 (Field Lighting Cross Section), while the light fixtures would be highly visible from the project site, because of the proposed spacing and narrow width of the light poles, views would continue to be available beyond the project site. Figure 6 also illustrates that views of from residences would not be obstructed as a result of the proposed project, as the mass of the light poles would not be substantial enough to obstruct views and the elevation of existing residences allows for views beyond the Practice field. As the project site is an existing practice field on the HHS, field lighting and a restroom/storage facility would not be visually incompatible with the existing character of the project site which is currently visible when viewing of scenic resources. Based on the expansive nature of existing views, the wide spacing and narrow width of the proposed light poles, and the project elements visual compatibility with the existing character of the project site, scenic vistas would not be adversely affected as a result of the proposed project, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.

2 City of Glendale, City of Glendale General Plan, Open Space and Conservation Element, http://www.ci.glendale.ca.us/planning/pdf_files/GeneralPlan/OpenSpace/1993%20Open%20Space%20and%20Conservation%20Element%20with%20Amendments.pdf (accessed April 10, 2012)

Glendale2

1

4

3

Figure 5aPublic Viewing Point Locations Map

1000

2745

7 | H

oove

r Hig

h S

choo

l Fie

ld L

ight

s In

itial

Stu

dy/N

egat

ive

Dec

lara

tion

Source: Microsoft Streets & Trips, basemap (2011). NOT TO SCALE

Viewing Point 1 Viewing Point 2

Viewing Point 3 Viewing Point 4

Figure 5bPublic Viewing Points in Project Vicinity

1000

2745

7 | H

oove

r Hig

h S

choo

l Fie

ld L

ight

s In

itial

Stu

dy/N

egat

ive

Dec

lara

tion

Source: Atkins (2012).

10'-0" 20'-0" 40'-0"0"HOOVER HIGH SCHOOL: SITE SECTION

SHOWING TWO 90’ TALL LIGHT POLES

Figure 6Field Lighting Cross Section

1000

2745

7 | H

oove

r Hig

h S

choo

l Fie

ld L

ight

s In

itial

Stu

dy/N

egat

ive

Dec

lara

tion

Source: Musco (2012). NOT TO SCALE

Environmental Issues




No Impact


18

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

Discussion

No Impact. The proposed project site is the existing practice field located on the HHS campus. The project site is not located within a designated scenic highway nor is it visible from a state designated scenic highway. No scenic resources including historic structures, rock outcroppings and trees are located on or in the vicinity of the project site. As such, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the damage of a scenic resource within a state designated scenic highway, and no impact would occur.

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

Discussion

Less-Than-Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the installation and operation of four 90-foot light poles and the construction of a 1,500 sf restroom/storage facility on the existing HHS practice field. Field lighting fixtures, such as those proposed for the HHS practice field are typical features for institutional facilities. The HHS campus is located within a developed and built out area of the City of Glendale, and is appropriate for siting a lighted public sports field use, and generally such a use would be visually compatible with the character of the area.

As proposed project elements are visually compatible with the existing visual character of the project site, the visual character of the project site would not be degraded. From the perspective of the surrounding area, the project site would maintain its existing character as a practice field on an existing high school campus. As such, the proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the project site and surrounding area, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.

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

Discussion

Less-Than-Significant Impact. Existing night time lighting sources at the project site and surrounding area consist of street lights, security lights, vehicle headlights, and interior building illumination. As previously described, permanent field lighting would allow for HHS sports team practices that currently conclude at dusk be extended approximately 30 minutes to 1 hour in order for practice to be properly concluded and athletes to depart in a safe manner. Use of the proposed field lighting by outside sports group would require a Facilities Use Permit issued by GUSD, similar to existing conditions that would establish the allowable hours of use. Additionally, the practice field and track would continue to be available to local residents for informal recreational uses (i.e., walking, jogging uses), similar to the existing conditions. During these times, the District would illuminate the track for increased user safety,





No Impact


19

but the practice field would not be lit. In all cases, the field lights would not be in use beyond 9:00 PM. The District would have full control over the amount of lighting to be utilized and outside user groups would use preset lighting zones and would not have access to the lighting controls.

All proposed lighting is intended to adequately illuminate the playing field surface in a manner that assures safety for players on the fields (i.e., consistent light levels without noticeable variation) and to assure adequate lighting along the walkways to the proposed restroom facility. The proposed lighting is compatible with general night lighting in the project vicinity. The proposed light poles would each be equipped with five luminaires, all directed inward and downward onto the playing field and walkway surfaces. Light fixtures and visors would be adjusted upon installation to shield the proposed luminaires from view from off-site locations, to direct light inward and downward onto playing field and walkway surfaces, and to limit sky glow and light overspill. Specifically, each light fixture would be outfitted with Musco’s LSG 14-inch visor, shown in Figure 4, which covers more than a third of the surface lenses and does not include any external holes or riveted parts that let light escape outside of the visor. The LSG visor would direct light downward, reducing the spill light, sky glow and glare. The LSG visor utilizes the best available visor technology. Sky glow from a fixture using the LSG visor would be similarly reduced over that of the TLC visor. Based on the Design Element of Spill Light and Glare Control Technical Bulletin prepared by Musco Sports Lighting LLC the height of the field lighting would also reduce spill lighting and sky glow to the maximum extent feasible while still meeting District objectives, because the increased height of the light poles allows for a steeper vertical aiming angle for light fixtures which reduces spill light and glare.3

For the purpose of this analysis only changes in off-site lighting levels are considered because uses on the proposed project site are not considered light sensitive uses.

Other LSG features of the revised field lights that control spill light and glare in addition to the LSG 14-inch visor and the height of light poles include a reflector system, side shift beam control, die-cast housing, and factory aiming of the fixtures.

The following terms are used in this discussion: ■ Spill light: The light emitted from an installation that falls outside the boundaries of the property on

which the lighting system is installed. ■ Obtrusive light: Spill light that causes annoyance, discomfort, distraction, or a reduction in the ability

to see essential information such as traffic signals. ■ Glare: The discomfort or impairment of vision experienced when the image is excessively bright in

relation to the general surroundings. ■ Foot-candle (fc): The recognized international unit for the measure of light (luminance) falling onto a

surface

The following are examples of light levels, expressed in foot-candles: ■ Bright and sunny day: 3,000 fc ■ Professional baseball-field lighting: 300 fc

3 Musco Sports Lighting LLC, Technical Bulletin #TB0015: Design Elements of Spill Light and Glare Control (revised January 20, 2011).





No Impact


20

■ Office: 50 to 75 fc ■ Residential lighting at night: 7 to 10 fc ■ Main road junction street lighting: 2.5 to 3.0 fc ■ Bright moonlight: 0.1 fc

Spil l L ight

The proposed light pole locations and the orientation of fixtures are intended to minimize potential light spillover beyond the perimeter of the playing field. As shown in Figure 7 (Illumination Summary), the average lighting would be 32.6 fc on the field, with a maximum brightness of 42 fc and a minimum brightness of 17 fc. This would meet California Interscholastic Federation (CIF) standards for football and soccer practices, and is considered adequate for the proposed uses of the field, including instructional and organized youth recreational purposes.

As previously described, the proposed project site is bordered by single-family homes directly adjacent and to the east; and single-family homes to the north across Olmstead Drive, located approximately 50 feet from the HHS Campus. The HHS practice field and track are located approximately 15 feet below Olmstead Drive and is separated by a retaining wall along the northern perimeter of the track, while the residential properties to the east are separated by a retaining wall and landscaping that extends up to approximately 25 feet above the track. The site and the surrounding area currently have average ambient nighttime light levels for a residential urbanized area. The City of Glendale has not established a threshold for spill or obtrusive light. Therefore, the District has determined that if the proposed project were to result in spill light above 2.5 fc on adjacent properties, a significant impact would occur. The District has adopted the 2.5 fc as a threshold as these light levels are consistent with the surrounding nighttime environment, where street lighting is the predominant source of lighting.

Figure 8 (Photometric Levels at Property Line—Field Lights) show that the practice field fully illuminated results in a maximum light level at the eastern property line of 1.70 fc, which is below the districts adopted threshold. Figure 9 (Photometric Levels at Property Line—Track Lights) shows that with only the running track illuminated, the maximum light levels would be 1.48 fc. It is anticipated that light levels would be further reduced by the existing landscaping that is above the roof line of the adjacent properties.

Figure 10 (Photometric Levels at Residential Uses on Olmstead Drive—Field Lights) shows that the maximum light levels at the residential uses to the north of the HHS practice field, across from Olmstead Drive would be 2.24 fc. Figure 11 (Photometric Levels at Residential Uses on Olmstead Drive—Track Lights) shows that the maximum light levels with only the running track illuminated would be 1.34 fc. Additionally, the proposed project would involve the inclusion of an 8-foot-high green screen along the northern fence adjacent Olmstead Drive, similar to that that exists on the western fence along School Street. This green screen would serve to diffuse and filter the spill light, which would reduce the light levels at the properties north of Olmstead Drive.

Print Date (29/Mar/2012) & Time (14:51)

GUARANTEED PERFORMANCE

Not to be reproduced in whole or part without the writtenconsent of Musco Lighting. ©1981, 2012 Musco Lighting

By: Alex Nielsen

Date: 29-Mar-12File #: 156820r

24

29

30

31

33

34

31

32

38

38

40

39

37

33

32

39

39

39

37

34

32

27

32

33

32

30

29

26

23

27

27

25

24

24

22

19

25

24

20

19

21

17

20

26

25

21

20

21

19

25

31

30

26

25

27

26

31

36

37

35

33

33

32

36

42

42

41

39

37

36

33

40

39

40

39

39

36

22

28

29

30

31

33

30

11

9'

205'

11

9'

216'

12

9'

159'

12

9'

169'

S2S1

S3S4

SCALE IN FEET 1 : 80

0' 80' 160'

EQUIPMENT LIST FOR AREAS SHOWNPole Luminaires

QTY LOCATION SIZEGRADE

ELEVATIONMOUNTING

HEIGHTLAMPTYPE

QTY /POLE

THISGRID

OTHERGRIDS

4 S1-S4 90' - 90' 1500W MZ 8 8 0

4 TOTALS 32 32 0

Pole location(s) dimensions are relative

to 0,0 reference point(s)

ILLUMINATION SUMMARY

StadiumHoover High School Football

Glendale,CA

Stadium

· Size: 360' x 196'

· Grid Spacing = 30.0' x 30.0'

· Values given at 3.0' above grade

· Luminaire Type: Green Generation

· Rated Lamp Life: 5,000 hours

· Avg Lumens/Lamp: 134,000

CONSTANT ILLUMINATION

HORIZONTAL FOOTCANDLES

Entire GridNo. of Target Points: 84

Average: 30.6Maximum: 42Minimum: 17Avg/Min: 1.76Max/Min: 2.42

UG (Adjacent Pts): 1.45CV: 0.21

Average Lamp Tilt Factor: 1.000

Number of Luminaires: 32

Avg KW over 5,000: 50.05

Max KW: 54.4

Guaranteed Performance: The CONSTANT

ILLUMINATION described above is guaranteed for the rated

life of the lamp.

Field Measurements: Averages shall be +/-10% in

accordance with IESNA RP-6-01 and CIBSE LG4. Individual

measurements may vary from computer predictions.

Electrical System Requirements: Refer to Amperage

Draw Chart and/or the "Musco Control System Summary"for electrical sizing.

Installation Requirements: Results assume +/- 3%

nominal voltage at line side of the ballast and structures

located within 3 feet (1m) of design locations.

Figure 7Illumination Summary

1000

2745

7 | H

oove

r Hig

h S

choo

l Fie

ld L

ight

s In

itial

Stu

dy/N

egat

ive

Dec

lara

tion

Source: Musco (2012).




By: Alex Nielsen


S2S1

S3S40.20

0.40

0.59

1.16

1.39

1.70

1.57

1.13

0.93

0.37

0.26 0.79 2.33 6.78 12.70 13.48 13.26 10.36 7.10 5.43 5.37 6.89 10.23 13.94 14.39 13.26 6.83 1.98 0.80 0.41


0' 150' 300'



ELEVATIONMOUNTING

HEIGHTLAMPTYPE

QTY /POLE

THISGRID

OTHERGRIDS

4 S1-S4 90' - 90' 1500W MZ 8 8 0

4 TOTALS 32 32 0




Property SpillHoover High School Football

Glendale,CA

Property Spill

· Grid Spacing = 30.0'








Average: 5.201Maximum: 14.39Minimum: 0.20



Avg KW over 5,000: 50.05

Max KW: 54.4



life of the lamp.









Figure 8Photometric Levels at Property Line—Field Lights

1000

2745

7 | H

oove

r Hig

h S

choo

l Fie

ld L

ight

s In

itial

Stu

dy/N

egat

ive

Dec

lara

tion





By: Alex Nielsen


S2S1

S3S40.20

0.40

0.59

1.16

1.39

1.70

1.57

1.13

0.93

0.37

0.26 0.79 2.33 6.78 12.70 13.48 13.26 10.36 7.10 5.43 5.37 6.89 10.23 13.94 14.39 13.26 6.83 1.98 0.80 0.41


0' 150' 300'



ELEVATIONMOUNTING

HEIGHTLAMPTYPE

QTY /POLE

THISGRID

OTHERGRIDS

4 S1-S4 90' - 90' 1500W MZ 8 8 0

4 TOTALS 32 32 0




Property SpillHoover High School Football

Glendale,CA

Property Spill












Avg KW over 5,000: 50.05

Max KW: 54.4



life of the lamp.









Figure 9Photometric Levels at Property Line—Track Lights

1000

2745

7 | H

oove

r Hig

h S

choo

l Fie

ld L

ight

s In

itial

Stu

dy/N

egat

ive

Dec

lara

tion


Print Date (27/Apr/2012) & Time (12:26)



By: Shawn Moyer

Date: 27-Apr-12File #: 156820r1

S2S1

S3S4

0.010.010.010.010.010.020.020.030.040.050.060.080.070.300.691.582.242.091.691.351.261.271.451.822.142.031.060.490.120.050.050.04


0' 150' 300'



ELEVATIONMOUNTING

HEIGHTLAMPTYPE

QTY /POLE

THISGRID

OTHERGRIDS

4 S1-S4 90' - 90' 1500W MZ 8 8 0

4 TOTALS 32 32 0




Olmsted DriveHoover High School Football

Glendale,CA

Olmsted Drive












Avg KW over 5,000: 50.05

Max KW: 54.4



life of the lamp.









Figure 10Photometric Levels at Residential Uses on Olmstead Drive—Field Lights

1000

2745

7 | H

oove

r Hig

h S

choo

l Fie

ld L

ight

s In

itial

Stu

dy/N

egat

ive

Dec

lara

tion


Print Date (27/Apr/2012) & Time (12:26)



By: Shawn Moyer

Date: 27-Apr-12File #: 156820r1

S2S1

S3S4

0.000.010.010.010.010.010.020.020.020.030.040.040.030.190.391.061.341.100.860.720.690.690.740.921.161.320.680.280.080.020.030.03


0' 150' 300'



ELEVATIONMOUNTING

HEIGHTLAMPTYPE

QTY /POLE

THISGRID

OTHERGRIDS

4 S1-S4 90' - 90' 1500W MZ 8 3 5

4 TOTALS 32 12 20




Olmsted Drive - Track OnlyHoover High School Football

Glendale,CA

Olmsted Drive - Track Only












Avg KW over 5,000: 18.77

Max KW: 20.4



life of the lamp.









Figure 11Photometric Levels at Residential Uses on Olmstead Drive—Track Lights

1000

2745

7 | H

oove

r Hig

h S

choo

l Fie

ld L

ight

s In

itial

Stu

dy/N

egat

ive

Dec

lara

tion






No Impact


31

As show in Figure 8 through Figure 11, implementation of the proposed project would not result in spill lighting on residential property that would exceed 2.5 fc. The nighttime lighting levels at off-site locations from the illuminated practice field would be substantially similar to the existing conditions in the area. As such, the field lighting would be compatible with the area surrounding the proposed project site and would not pose a safety hazard or create substantial spill light or obtrusive light. Therefore, spill lighting from the proposed project will result in a less-than-significant lighting impact. To further reduce potential impacts, existing landscaping and the provision of an 8-foot-high green screen along the northern fence will help to shield nearby residents from the practice field lighting.

Glare

Glare refers to the sensation we experience when looking into an excessively bright light source that causes a reduction in the ability to see, or causes discomfort to the eye. Glare is commonly experienced when driving into a sunrise or sunset, or when approaching an oncoming vehicle using their high beam headlights at night. Glare, and the perception of glare, varies on a number of factors including: source brightness, the contrast between the brightness of the glare source and the brightness of the surrounding environment, and size/location of the glare source. Glare created by sports-lighting systems can be measured for impairment of view. A typical example of glare effects is the car headlight. When viewed directly in front of a vehicle with the headlights on full beam, vision is impaired, resulting in disabling glare. However, when viewed from the side, the same headlights would not impair vision. A significant lighting impact would occur if glare created by the proposed project impairs vision.

As previously discussed, lighting fixtures located on the practice field will be directed downward, onto the HHS practice field, and away from sensitive receptors. While the 90-foot-high light fixtures would be visible to nearby residential uses, the light source would not be directed onto these residential uses, and as discussed previously the light levels would be within the range of typical suburban residential nighttime light levels.

Additionally, each light fixture would be outfitted with Musco’s LSG 14-inch visor that will further direct the lighting downward, reducing the potential for glare outside of the practice field. Furthermore, the proposed light fixtures would feature Green Generation technology, which is known to reduce glare significantly, and a Control Link system, which allows for monitoring and remote on/off scheduling, ensuring that lights are on only when needed. Following installation of the lights, factory field service technicians would adjust the aiming alignment of the lighting fixtures to reduce glare. Additionally, existing landscaping and the provision of an 8-foot-high green screen along the northern fence will help to shield nearby residents from the practice field lighting. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant glare impact.





No Impact


32

II. AGRICULTURE/FORESTRY RESOURCES

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

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

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

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

(d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to nonforest use?

(e) Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to nonforest use?

Discussion

No Impact. The proposed project site is currently developed as the existing practice field on the HHS campus. No farmland, forest land, timberland, or other agricultural uses occur on the project site or surrounding area. Additionally, the project site’s zoning of Low Density Residential does not allow for agricultural uses and the project site is not designated Prime, Unique, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. As the proposed project would have no impact on Agricultural Resources on the project site or surrounding area.

III. AIR QUALITY

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

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

Discussion

No Impact. The proposed project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) and is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which is required,

SECTION III. Air Quality




No Impact


33

pursuant to the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment. Strategies to achieve these reductions in emissions are developed in the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) prepared by SCAQMD for the Basin. The AQMP is based on regional population projections included in General Plans for those communities located within the Basin, including the City of Glendale. Population growth is typically associated with the construction of residential units or large employment centers. A project would be inconsistent with the AQMP if growth estimates resulting from the project would exceed growth projections for the area or region. The proposed project does not include any residential development or housing and would not result in significant population or employment growth. For these reasons, the proposed project would not produce local or regional growth in excess of the 2007 AQMP estimates, which are based on SCAG projections.

The proposed project involves the installation of practice field lighting and restroom facilities on the HHS Campus, and does not propose any land use changes, nor would it result in a land use that would create operational emissions. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan, which would make it consistent with the AQMP, and no impact would occur.

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

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

Discussion

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would involve the installation of four permanent light poles and 1,500 sf restroom facilities at the HHS practice field, which would include construction activities. Installation and construction would begin in summer of 2012. Construction of the restroom facilities and installation of the light fixtures are anticipated to occur concurrently. Based upon on the construction information provided by the GUSD, grading of the area for the restroom construction would occur first and last approximately 20 day, followed by building construction that would last for 20 days. The final stage in the restroom facility construction would be architectural coating/painting, which would occur over a period of 15 day. While the restroom facilities are being constructed the light fixtures would be installed. The first activity would be trenching for installation of electrical conduits would last approximately 11 days. Backfill of the electrical conduit trenches would occur next and last approximately 5 days, while installation of the lighting poles, including pouring of concrete for the light fixture bases would last another 5 days.

Emissions for the construction activities were calculated using the CalEEMod, a computer program developed by the SCAQMD that calculates emissions for construction and operation of development projects. The CalEEMod calculation sheets are included as Appendix A to this ND. For on-road vehicular emissions, CalEEMod utilizes the EMFAC2007 emission rates that have been developed by the





No Impact


34

California Air Resources Board (California ARB). Equipment for each phase of construction activity is based upon information provided by GUSD.

The majority of construction emissions are generated by construction equipment and from dust resulting from construction activity. The SCAQMD has developed the CEQA Air Quality Handbook that establishes suggested significance thresholds based on the volume of pollution emitted. According to the Handbook, any project in the Basin with daily emissions that exceed any of the following thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact:

Construction ■ 75 pounds per day (lbs/day) of ROG (reactive organic gases) ■ 100 lbs/day of NOX (oxides of nitrogen) ■ 550 lbs/day of CO (carbon monoxide) ■ 150 lbs/day of SOX (oxides of sulfur) ■ 150 lbs/day of PM10 (respirable 10-micron-diameter particulate matter) ■ 55 lbs/day of PM2.5 (respirable 2.5-micron-diameter particulate matter)

Operation ■ 55 pounds per day (lbs/day) of ROG (reactive organic gases) ■ 55 lbs/day of NOX (oxides of nitrogen) ■ 550 lbs/day of CO (carbon monoxide) ■ 150 lbs/day of SOX (oxides of sulfur) ■ 150 lbs/day of PM10 (respirable 10-micron-diameter particulate matter) ■ 55 lbs/day of PM2.5 (respirable 2.5-micron-diameter particulate matter)

Construction Emissions

The regional air pollutant emissions resulting from construction of the new classroom building were calculated and the results are presented in Table 1 (Estimated Peak Daily Construction Emissions in Pounds per Day). The CalEEMod worksheets that show the specific data used to calculate the construction emissions are included as Appendix A to this ND. As shown in Table 1, construction emissions would be below the Regional Significance Thresholds established by the SCAQMD during all construction phases. In general, the primary source of CO and NOX emissions would be from construction equipment and off-site vehicle trips, while the primary source of PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would be from ground disturbance. It should be noted that compliance with SCAQMD’s Rule 403 results in the inclusion of watering of the disturbed soil three times daily in the CalEEMod model. Without daily watering, the PM10 and PM2.5emissions generation would be higher, but still below the SCAQMD threshold of significance.





No Impact


35

Table 1 Estimated Peak Daily Construction Emissions in Pounds per Day

Emission Source Peak Day Emissions in Pounds per Day

ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5

Grading (for restroom facilities)

On Site 1.99 14.01 9.38 0.02 1.17 1.01

Off Site 0.10 0.62 0.94 0.00 0.60 0.03

Maximum Daily Emissions 2.09 14.63 10.32 0.02 1.77 1.04

SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55

Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No

Building (for restroom facilities)

On Site 3.27 20.63 12.17 0.02 1.36 1.36

Off Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00




Architectural Coating (for restroom facilities)

On Site 2.84 3.16 1.96 0.00 0.29 0.29

Off Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00




Trenching(concurrent with grading activities)

On Site 0.94 7.33 5.18 0.01 0.42 0.42

Off Site 0.02 0.02 0.24 0.00 0.05 0.00




Paving (concurrent with building activities)

On Site 1.06 7.60 4.43 0.01 0.54 0.54

Off Site 0.07 0.07 0.81 0.00 0.16 0.01








No Impact


36

Table 1 Estimated Peak Daily Construction Emissions in Pounds per Day

Emission Source Peak Day Emissions in Pounds per Day

ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5

Grading and Trenching Activities

Grading 2.09 14.63 10.32 0.02 1.77 1.04

Trenching 0.96 7.35 5.42 0.01 0.47 0.42




Building and Paving Activities

Building 3.27 20.63 12.17 0.02 1.36 1.36

Paving 1.13 7.67 5.24 0.01 0.70 0.55



Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No SOURCE: Atkins (2012) (CalEEMod outputs available as Appendix A to this ND). Assumes compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, including watering the construction site three times daily.

Operational Emissions

Operational emissions are defined as emissions of criteria pollutants generated by both area and mobile sources Examples of area sources include residential and commercial water heaters, painting operations, portable generators, lawn mowers, agricultural fields, landfills, and consumer products, such as barbeque lighter fluid and hairspray, the area wide use of which contributes to regional air pollution. Mobile sources refer to emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions, and are classified as either on-road or off-road. On-road sources are those that are legally operated on roadways and highways. Off-road sources include aircraft, ships, trains, racecars, and construction vehicles.

The proposed project would not result in new vehicle trips. Rather, implementation of the proposed project would shift existing traffic that occurs for HHS athletic practices, such as football and soccer teams from an afternoon start time to an evening start time. Similarly, the proposed project would not include the development of area source emitters, as the new field lights would be powered by electricity generated and purchased from Southern California Edison and no new emissions would occur at the Campus. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant operational emissions and no SCAQMD threshold would be exceeded.

The proposed project would not exceed any regional thresholds, individually or cumulatively during operation or construction of the field lighting. During construction, the Districts construction contractor would be required to comply with SCAQMD’s Rule 403 to suppress fugitive dust. As discussed in this ND, compliance would include watering the construction site three times daily. With implementation of these BMPs, construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for regional impacts.





No Impact


37

Similarly, operation of the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold for operation. Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed project would not exceed established thresholds with respect to violation of air quality standards or contribution to existing or projected air quality violation. This impact would be less than significant.

(d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

Discussion

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to a substantial amount of pollutant concentrations during construction activities. Sensitive receptors are land uses such as residential, schools, daycare centers, and recreational facilities that are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the population at large. The proposed project would require minor and temporary pollutant emissions from construction activities. Minimal earth disturbing activities would occur and use of diesel equipment associated with construction of the proposed project would be limited. In addition, operation of the proposed project would not increase vehicle trips per day, and, therefore, would not result in a significant increase in operational emission. The proposed project site is a pedestrian enhancement project that would not increase student population or result in an identifiable net increase in stationary emissions (electricity and natural gas). Since construction and operation of the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of criteria pollutants, this impact would be less than significant.

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

Discussion

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would require minor and temporary construction activities and would include minimal construction activities that may generate objectionable odors. These odors would be temporary in nature and would be confined to the immediate vicinity of the proposed project site. Therefore, these odors would not affect a substantial number of people. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 with regard to odors, and as such, this impact would be considered less than significant.





No Impact


38

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Would the project:

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

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

Discussion

No Impact. The project site is currently developed with a grass field and dirt track. Vegetation on the project site is limited to the grass field. No trees or water sources occur on the project site. As a result, no suitable habitat for candidate, sensitive species, or special-status species exists on the project site, nor does riparian habitat, other sensitive natural communities, or wetlands exist on the project site. In the absence of suitable habitat, no sensitive species occur on the project site. Additionally, according to the City’s General Open Space and Conservation Element, the project site is not located within a biological resource area, significant ecological area, or a natural community. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project which involves the installation of four 90-foot-tall light poles and the construction of a 1,500 sf restroom on the HHS practice field would not result in substantial adverse effect on protected species, riparian habitat, other sensitive natural communities, or wetlands, and no impact would occur.

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

Discussion

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The project site is currently developed as with a grass field and a dirt track. Vegetation on the project is limited to the grass field and no trees are located on the project. Surrounding development includes the residences to the north and east, and the remainder of the HHS campus. As previously described, the project site is confined by walls, fences, and structures and is located roughly 15 feet below the elevation of Olmstead Avenue. Due to the developed nature of the project site and surrounding area, absence of trees, and the confinement of the project site substantial wildlife movement does not currently occur though the proposed project site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project which involves the installation of four 90-foot-tall light poles and the

SECTION V. Cultural Resources




No Impact


39

construction of a 1,500 sf restroom on the HHS practice field would not substantially interfere with migratory movement, and this impact would be less than significant.

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

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

Discussion

No Impact. No biological resources protected by any local policies or ordinances occur on the project site including trees or protected species, as discussed in Section IV(a). No adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan is applicable to the proposed project site. As such, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with a local policy or ordinance protecting biological resources or a Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan, and no impact would occur.

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES

Would the project:

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

Discussion

No Impact. The project site is currently developed with a grass field, dirt track, and three relocatable classroom buildings. No historical resources occur on the project site. As such, no impact to historical resources would occur as a result of the proposed project.

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

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

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

Discussion

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The project site is currently developed as with a grass field and a dirt track. According to the City’s General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element, no archeological sites have been identified in the City of Glendale and paleontological resources are general found within sedimentary rock formations which underlay the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the installation of four light poles and the construction of a 1,500 sf restroom/storage





No Impact


40

facilities neither of which would require extensive ground disturbance. Because extensive ground moving activities would not be required, the area of ground disturbance would be minimal, and ground disturbance would take place in areas that have been previously disturbed, the likelihood of encountering cultural resources is unlikely. If archaeological resources are discovered during construction, the GUSD and its construction contractor would be required to satisfy the requirements of Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21083.2. Similarly, human burials, in addition to being potential archaeological resources, have specific provisions for treatment in PRC Section 5097. Disturbing human remains would destroy the resources and could potentially violate the health code. The Health and Safety Code (Sections 7050.5, 7051, and 7054) has specific provisions for the protection of human burial remains. Existing regulations address the illegality of interfering with human burial remains, protect them from disturbance, vandalism, or destruction, and establish procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered. PRC Section 5097.98 also addresses the disposition of Native American burials, protects such remains, and establishes the Native American Heritage Commission to resolve any related disputes. As such, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on archeological resources, paleontological resources, and human remains.

VI. GEOLOGY/SOILS




No Impact

Would the project: (a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or

death involving:

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

Discussion

No Impact. The proposed project site is not listed within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.4

No active faults are known to transect the site and, therefore, the site is not expected to be adversely affected by surface rupturing. No fault rupture is delineated by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, and no hazard is anticipated at the proposed project site. Therefore, no impact would occur.

4 California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey—Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (January 2010), http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/download/ap/pdf/BURBANK.PDF (accessed April 3, 2012)

SECTION VI. Geology/Soils




No Impact


41




No Impact

(ii) Strong seismic groundshaking?

Discussion

Less-Than-Significant Impact. As with all development in Southern California, the proposed project site is located in a seismically active region and may be subject to the effects of ground shaking. Strong groundshaking occurs when energy is released during an earthquake and varies dependent on the distance between the site and the earthquake, the magnitude of the earthquake, and the geologic conditions underlying and surrounding the site. The proposed project site could be expected to experience strong groundshaking from numerous local and regional faults. Further, the proposed project would be required to comply with the provisions of the 2010 California Building Code (CBC) and the requirements of the Division of the State Architect (DSA) that includes stringent seismic standards required by the Field Act. Conformance with the seismic safety provisions of the most current requirements of the CBC and the DSA would ensure adequate mitigation of the risks associated with faulting within, or proximate to, the proposed project site. Impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant.




No Impact

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

Discussion

Less-Than-Significant Impact. Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which cohesionless, saturated, fine-grained sand and sandy silt soils lose shear strength and fail due to groundshaking.5 Liquefaction is defined as the transformation of granular material from a solid state into a liquefied state as a consequence of increased pore-water pressure.6 According to the City of Glendale General Plan Safety Element, the proposed project site is not located within a liquefaction hazard zone.7 A full geotechnical investigation and report, which is required by California Education Codes 17212 and 17212.5 and by the DSA, will be completed during project design.8

Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur as a result of seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction.

5 California Department of Conservation, Seismic Hazard Factsheet (2008). 6 California Department of Conservation, Seismic Hazard Factsheet (2008). 7 City of Glendale, City of Glendale General Plan, Safety Element, http://www.ci.glendale.ca.us/planning/pdf_files/safety_element/safety_element.pdf (accessed April 11, 2012) 8 California Education Codes 17212 and 17212.5





No Impact


42




No Impact

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

No Impact. Significant landslides and erosion typically occur on steep slopes where stormwater and high winds can carry topsoil down hillsides. The proposed project is located in a relatively level area, and there are no steep slopes where stormwater and high winds can carry topsoil down hillsides. Additionally, the project site is entirely developed with the existing HHS practice field and contains no exposed soils that could be subject to soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Therefore, because construction of the proposed project is in a relatively level area, no impact would occur.




No Impact

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

Discussion

Less-Than-Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Major erosion typically occurs on long, steep slopes where stormwater and/or high winds can carry topsoil down hillsides. The proposed project is not located on a slope, and there are no slopes located near the project site. Construction of the proposed project would not result in any major ground surface disruptions that could create the potential for erosion. The proposed project would involve minimal construction activities and would not involve substantial earth-moving activities. Compliance with design, grading and structural recommendations included in the project-specific geotechnical and soils report per DSA requirement, would ensure that potential impacts of the proposed project on soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be less than significant.




No Impact

(d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 20-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?

Discussion

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The DSA requires an updated, detailed, and project-specific geotechnical and soils study, prepared by a registered geologist and soils engineer, as part of the construction document package. This project-specific geotechnical study would include recommendations for foundations and land development (grading) to mitigate for the effects of strong

SECTION VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions




No Impact


43

ground motion on any of the new structures constructed as part of the proposed project. Therefore, the potential impacts of expansive soils at the proposed project site would be less than significant.




No Impact

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

Discussion

No Impact. The proposed project would not produce wastewater that requires support of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore the proposed project would have no impact.

VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Would the project:

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

Discussion

Less-Than-Significant Impact. To address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the installation and use of field lighting for the proposed project, this ND calculated GHG emissions from the construction equipment needed to install the electrical conduit and light fixtures, as well as the electrical output from use of the lights themselves. Construction is a temporary source of emissions necessary to facilitate development. Although these emissions are temporary, they must be accounted for, as the impact from the emissions of GHGs is cumulative. Based on current SCAQMD methodology, GHGs emitted during construction are amortized over an estimated 30-year project lifetime. The amortized emissions are then combined with the operational emissions to provide a cumulative annual estimate of annual GHG emissions for the proposed project. Construction emissions for greenhouse gases were generated using CalEEMod and are included as Appendix B to this ND.

For the calculation of emissions from electrical usage, the kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electrical consumption per year from operation of the lights were multiplied by the Southern California Edison emission factors for Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), and Nitrous Oxide (N2O) for electrical generation. These factors were then multiplied by their global warming potential (CO2 =1, CH4 = 21, and N2O = 310) and added together to determine the total annual operation carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions for the proposed project. Based on information provided by Musco Lighting, each fixture runs off of 1.564 kWh.9

9 Michael Winfrey, Email communication with Musco Sports Lighting LLC (February 10, 2012).

Therefore, the light fixtures would equate to 75 kW/h. The District anticipates that operation of the field lighting would not exceed 125 hours per year, which would equate to 9,375 kW/h per year.





No Impact


44

The CEQA Guidelines do not have numeric or qualitative thresholds of significance for greenhouse gas emissions. The CEQA Guideline Amendments, adopted in December 2010, state that each local lead agency must develop its own significance criteria based on local conditions, data, and guidance from public agencies and other sources.

The SCAQMD is the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the Los Angeles County area. In order to provide GHG emission guidance to the local jurisdictions within the South Coast Air Basin, the SCAQMD organized a Working Group to develop GHG emission analysis guidance and thresholds. SCAQMD released a draft guidance document regarding interim CEQA GHG significance thresholds in October 2008. On December 5, 2008, the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted the staff proposal for an interim GHG significance threshold for projects where the SCAQMD is lead agency. SCAQMD proposed a tiered approach, whereby the level of detail and refinement needed to determine significance increases with a project’s total GHG emissions. The tiered approach defines projects that are exempt under CEQA and projects that are within the jurisdiction of, and subject to, the policies of a GHG Reduction Plan as less than significant, and provides thresholds of significance.

For the purposes of this analysis and based on full consideration of the available information, institutional projects, such as those associated with educational projects, that meet the following criteria will be determined to have a less-than-significant impact with respect to the emissions of greenhouse gases:

■ The institutional project must limit the emissions of greenhouse gases to 3,000 MT CO2e annually or less, pursuant to SCAQMD’s draft GHG emissions threshold for residential project-level analysis.

■ The individual project must comply with the plans and policies of SB 375 and the AB 32 Scoping Plan adopted by California ARB for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Following the SCAQMD recommendations, construction emissions would be amortized over an anticipated 30-year structure lifetime and added to the operational emissions to provide an average annual emissions estimate. Table 2 (Estimated Annual GHG Emissions) shows the estimated GHG emissions for the construction and operation of the proposed project. Detailed assumptions and emission calculations are included in Appendix B.

Table 2 Estimated Annual GHG Emissions Emission Source Metric Tons CO2e

Amortized Construction a 1.38

Energy 2.704

Total 4.09 MT CO2e

SCAQMD Institutional Screening Threshold 3,000 MT CO2e

Significant? No SOURCE: Atkins (2012) (CalEEMod 2011.1 was used to determine construction

emissions; CalEEMod output is included in Appendix B).

SECTION VIII. Hazards/Hazardous Materials




No Impact


45

GHG emissions would be substantially below the recommended SCAQMD threshold and therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

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

Discussion

Less-Than-Significant Impact. AB 32, The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 establishes California’s target to reduce emissions back to 1990 levels by the year 2020. SB 375, a follow up to AB 32, establishes targets for reducing emissions from passenger vehicles. The SCAQMD draft CEQA thresholds for GHG emissions were developed following AB 32 and SB 375 in order to aid the state in reaching these targets. The CEQA threshold was developed to evaluate a project’s GHG emissions as well as its consistency with AB 32 and SB 375. Therefore, the analysis provided under Section VII(a) above also provides an analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with AB 32 and SB 375. Since the proposed project would produce emissions that are below the SCAQMD threshold, both options of the proposed project is consistent with AB 32 and SB 375, the statewide policies for reducing GHG emissions. GHG emissions would be substantially below the recommended SCAQMD threshold and therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

VIII. HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Would the project:

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

Discussion

Less-Than-Significant Impact. Hazardous materials associated with the proposed project would consist mostly of construction related equipment and materials. Use and/or storage of hazardous materials at the project site are expected to be minimal and would not constitute a level that would be subject to regulation.

During the construction phase, hazardous materials in the form of solvents, glues, and other common construction materials containing toxic substances may be transported to the site, and construction waste that possibly contains hazardous materials could be transported off the site for purposes of disposal. Appropriate documentation for all hazardous waste that is transported off site in connection with activities at the HHS Campus would be provided as required to ensure compliance with the existing hazardous materials regulations.

Operation of the proposed project would not require the handling of hazardous materials or result in the production of large amounts of hazardous waste. During the construction phase, the proposed project may generate hazardous and/or toxic waste. Federal, state, and local regulations govern the disposal of





No Impact


46

wastes identified as hazardous which could be produced in the course of demolition and construction. Any potential hazardous materials encountered during demolition or construction activities would be disposed of in compliance with all applicable regulations for the handling of such waste. Adherence to all applicable federal and state laws related routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would reduce the likelihood and severity of accidents which might occur during disposal of site-generated hazardous wastes, transit of hazardous waste, and project-induced upset from hazardous materials to a level that is less than significant.

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

Discussion

Less-Than-Significant Impact.

Construction Effects

The proposed project site does not appear on any regulatory agency database.10

■ Direct dermal contact with hazardous materials

Construction activities of the proposed project could result in the exposure of construction personnel and the public to previously identified hazardous substances in the soil. Exposure to unanticipated hazardous substances could also occur from previously unidentified soil contamination caused by migrating contaminants originating at nearby listed sites. Exposure to hazardous materials during construction activities could occur as a result of any of the following:

■ Incidental ingestion of hazardous materials (usually due to improper hygiene, when workers fail to wash their hands before eating, drinking, or smoking)

■ Inhalation of airborne dust released from dried hazardous materials

Federal and state regulations govern the renovation and demolition of structures where materials containing lead and asbestos are present. These requirements include: Construction Safety Orders 1529 (pertaining to asbestos) and 1532.1 (pertaining to lead), and lead exposure guidelines provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Asbestos and lead abatement must be performed and monitored by contractors with appropriate certifications from the state Department of Health Services. In addition, Cal-OSHA regulates worker safety with respect to the use of hazardous materials, including requirements for safety training, availability of safety equipment, hazardous materials exposure warnings, and emergency action and fire prevention plan preparation. Cal-OSHA enforces the hazard communication program regulations, which include provisions for identifying and labeling hazardous materials, describing the hazards of chemicals, and documenting employee training programs.

10 Geotracker, Database search, http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=651+Glenwood+Road%2C+Glendale+CA (accessed April 11, 2012).





No Impact


47

If any unidentified sources of contamination are encountered during grading or excavation of the proposed project, the removal activities required could pose health and safety risks capable of resulting in various short-term or long-term adverse health effects in exposed persons. Compliance with existing regulations and would ensure that construction workers and the general public are not exposed to any unusual or excessive risks related to hazardous materials during construction activities. As such, impacts associated with the exposure of construction workers and the public to hazardous materials during construction activities for the proposed project would be less than significant.

Operational Effects

It is not anticipated that operation the proposed project would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Hazardous materials could be stored within the project site would consist of common chemicals. Development of the proposed project would include the use and storage of common hazardous materials such as paints, solvents, and cleaning products for maintenance of the restroom facilities. The properties and health effects of different chemicals are unique to each chemical and depend on the extent to which an individual is exposed. The extent and exposure of individuals to hazardous materials would be limited by the relatively small quantities of these materials that are expected to be stored and used on the project site. As common maintenance products and chemicals would be consumed by use and with adherence to warning labels and storage recommendations from the individual manufacturers, these hazardous materials would not pose any greater risk than at any other similar development. Therefore, the probability of a major hazardous materials incident would be remote for the proposed project. Minor incidents could occur, but the consequences of such accidents would likely not be severe due to the types and amount of common chemicals anticipated to be used at the site. Impacts would be less than significant.

(c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school?

Discussion

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project site is the HHS practice field and the existing Hoover High School campus. The next closest schools to the project site are the Mark Keppel Elementary School and Eleanor J. Toll Middle School located to the south across Glenwood Road. As discussed above under items VIII(a) and (b), the use of hazardous materials and substances during the operation of the proposed project are generally minimal and in small quantities. Currently, hazardous materials are used at Hoover High School for maintenance and repair activities, landscaping, air conditioning, medical supplies, and science labs. Operation of the HHS facility would continue as under existing conditions. All hazardous materials and substances at the proposed project site would be subject to federal, state, and local health and safety requirements (i.e. RCRA, California Hazardous Waste Control Law, and principles prescribed by the California Department of Health Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and National Institutes of Health) and the proposed project would be under the regulatory oversight agencies (e.g., Los Angeles County Environmental Health Division, DTSC





No Impact


48

and/or RWQCB. The proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact with regard to the emission or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or wastes within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school (air quality emissions are discussed in Section III, above).

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

Discussion

No Impact. The Hoover High School campus does not appear on any regulatory agency database. Adherence to existing laws and regulations would ensure that the no impact associated with exposure to hazardous materials from the development of the proposed project would occur.

(e) If located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

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

Discussion

No Impact. The proposed project site is located approximately 8 miles southeast of the Bob Hope Airport, located at 2627 North Hollywood Way in the City of Burbank. Bob Hope Airport is governed by the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission Comprehensive Land Use Plan guidelines. This document is intended to provide for reasonable, safe, and efficient use of the airport as a public transportation facility, provide a base for aviation and aviation-related operations, and protect the municipal environment from the effects of aircraft noise. Potential land use development is to be judged compatible with the airport based on criteria set forth in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Procedural Policies contained in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan document. According to the Bob Hope Airport Influence Area Map, the proposed project site is not located in an airport land use plan area.11

FAR Part 77 regulations establish standards and notification requirements for objects affecting navigable airspace. CRF Title 14 Part 77.13 requires that any project applicant who intends to perform any construction or alterations to structures that exceed 200 feet in height above ground level must notify the Federal Aviation Administration for project approval. The proposed project would not require high-rise structures in the proximity of the airport airway that could conflict with FAR Part 77 regulations. As a result, the proposed project would not result in safety hazards for people residing or working in the area, and no impact would occur.

11 Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission, Comprehensive Land Use Plan (December 2011), Figure (Burbank/Glendale/Pasadena Airport Influence Area Map), http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/data/pd_alup.pdf (accessed March 23, 2012).





No Impact


49

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

Discussion

No Impact. The installation of a field lighting system would not interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan and field lighting will in no way interfere with the City of Glendale emergency operations. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project, which involves the installation and restricted operation of four permanent light poles on the practice field, would have no impact on emergency response or evacuation plans.

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

Discussion

No Impact. The proposed project site and surrounding area are characterized by features typical of an urban landscape and include industrial uses. No wildlands exist within the immediate vicinity of the proposed project site. Consequently, development of the proposed project would not result in the exposure of people or structures to hazards associated with wildland fires and no impact would occur.





No Impact


50

IX. HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY

Would the project:

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

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

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

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

(e) Create or contribute runoff water that 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?

Discussion

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project site is located in a built-out urban environment, and currently the proposed project site consists of the existing HHS practice field. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the installation of four light poles and the construction of a 1,500 sf restroom/storage facilities.

Construction Phase

The proposed project would include construction activities, such as clearing and digging, excavation, soil compaction, cut and fill activities, and grading, all of which would temporarily disturb soils. Disturbed soils are susceptible to high rates of erosion from wind and rain, resulting in sediment transport from the site. Erosion and sedimentation affects water quality through interference with photosynthesis, oxygen exchange, and the respiration, growth, and reproduction of aquatic species. Additionally, other pollutants, such as nutrients, trace metals, and hydrocarbons, can attach to sediment and be transported downstream, which could contribute to degradation of water quality.

The delivery, handling, and storage of construction materials and wastes, as well as the use of construction equipment, could also introduce a risk for stormwater contamination that could impact water quality. Spills or leaks from heavy equipment and machinery can result in oil and grease contamination, and some hydrocarbon compound pollution associated with oil and grease can be toxic to aquatic organisms at low concentrations. Staging areas or building sites can also be the source of

SECTION IX. Hydrology/Water Quality




No Impact


51

pollution due to the use of paints, solvents, cleaning agents, and metals during construction. Impacts associated with metals in stormwater include toxicity to aquatic organisms, such as accumulation of substances, or other organic chemicals in an organism, and the potential contamination of drinking supplies. Larger pollutants, such as trash, debris, and organic matter, are additional pollutants that could be associated with construction activities. Impacts include health hazards and aquatic ecosystem damage associated with bacteria, viruses, and vectors (an organism, such as a mosquito or tick that spreads pathogens from one host to another). Construction impacts on water quality are potentially significant and could lead to exceedance of standards or criteria.

All construction activities would be subject to existing regulatory requirements. As required by the Stormwater NPDES Permit and Construction General Permit, the project developer would file a notice of intent (NOI) with the State of California to comply with the requirements of the General Construction Permit. This would include the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) incorporating Best Management Practices (BMPs) for construction-related control of erosion and sedimentation contained in stormwater runoff. Typical BMPs that could be incorporated into the SWPPP would include, but are not limited to, the following:

■ Diversion of off-site runoff away from the construction site ■ Vegetation of proposed landscaped/grassed swale areas as soon as feasible following grading

activities ■ Re-vegetation of exposed soil surfaces as soon as feasible following grading activities ■ Placement of perimeter straw wattles to prevent off-site transport of sediment ■ Usage of drop inlet protection (filters and sand bags or straw wattles), with sandbag check dams

within paved roadways ■ Regular watering of exposed soils to control dust during construction ■ Implementation of specifications for construction waste handling and disposal ■ Usage of contained equipment wash-out and vehicle maintenance areas ■ Maintenance of erosion and sedimentation control measures throughout the construction period ■ Stabilization of construction entrances to avoid trucks from imprinting debris on city roadways ■ Training of subcontractors on general site housekeeping

The development of a construction SWPPP has been identified as a means to protect water quality during construction activities. Incorporation of required BMPs for materials and waste storage and handling, equipment and vehicle maintenance and fueling, as well as for outdoor work areas, would reduce potential discharge of stormwater pollutants from these sources. Compliance with existing regulations would prevent violation of water quality standards and minimize the potential for contributing additional sources of polluted runoff. Therefore, violation of water quality standards, and contributions of additional sources of polluted runoff during construction of the proposed project would be less than significant.





No Impact


52

Operational Phase

Development of the proposed project would slightly increase the amount of potential stormwater runoff due to the increase in impermeable surfaces such as the restroom facilities compared to existing conditions. During the operational phase of the proposed project, the major source of pollution in stormwater runoff would be contaminants that have accumulated on rooftops and other impervious surfaces. Pollutants associated with the operational phase of the proposed project include nutrients, oil and grease, metals, organics, pesticides, and gross pollutants (including trash, debris, and bacteria).

The proposed project is expected to result in a slight increase in runoff because the project site would slightly increase the amount of impervious surfaces. Any discharges would flow to a lined or underground storm drain system. The proposed project could include the use of typical household hazardous materials on site. The proposed project could contribute more gross pollutants (e.g., trash, debris, pet waste) to stormwater runoff. Implementation of surface parking with a higher use rate could contribute to increased pollutants. Pesticides and nutrients used for landscaping would be expected to increase because the landscaping would be maintained on a more regular basis. Aerially deposited metals, nutrients, and other constituents would slightly increase due to the increase in the amount of impervious surfaces compared to existing conditions. The proposed project would implement BMPs to install storm captor gutter system to filter the runoff before discharge. The impact would be less than significant.

Acceptable structural and nonstructural BMPs are listed in the California Stormwater Quality Association’s (CASQA) Stormwater BMP Handbook for New Development and Redevelopment in compliance with the Stormwater NPDES Permit.12

The proposed project site is neither a designated groundwater recharge area, nor does the project site serve as a primary source of groundwater recharge. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.

Treatment flow rate or volume design requirements for structural BMPs are specified in the Stormwater NPDES Permit. Implementation of the existing regulations would ensure that appropriate BMPs are used, and regulatory requirements are met. Therefore, violation of water quality standards, and contribution of additional sources of polluted runoff during operation of the proposed project would be less than significant.

Overall, compliance with existing laws and regulations would ensure that the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact with respect to water quality or drainage in the proposed project area.

12 California Stormwater Quality Association, Handbook for New Development and Redevelopment (2003).

SECTION X. Land Use/Planning




No Impact


53

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

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

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

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

Discussion

No Impact. The proposed project area is within Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) Flood Zone Designation X (Zone X).13 Zone X is an area of minimal flood hazard, usually depicted on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) as above the 500-year flood level.14 According to the City of Glendale General Plan Safety Element, the proposed project site is not located within the inundation zone of any levee or dam.15

The proposed project site is not within a 100-year flood hazard area or inundation zone, and therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. No mitigation is required.

X. LAND USE/PLANNING

Would the project:

(a) Physically divide an established community?

Discussion

No Impact. The proposed project would not divide an established community and would not create physical barriers or separations within the communities. The proposed project would not result in the permanent closure of any streets or sidewalks or the separation of uses and/or disruption of access between land use types. No impact would occur.

13 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Map Service Center—FEMA-Issued Flood Maps (Map ID 06037C1790F, Los Angeles Co Uninc & Inc Areas) (2008), http://map1.msc.fema.gov/idms/IntraView.cgi?ROT=0&O_X=7204&O_Y=5224&O_ZM=0.056949&O_SX=820&O_SY=595&O_DPI=400&O_TH=49697313&O_EN=49697313&O_PG=1&O_MP=1&CT=0&DI=0&WD=14408&HT=10448&JX=1362&JY=655&MPT=0&MPS=0&ACT=0&KEY=49636055&ITEM=1&ZX1=324&ZY1=172&ZX2=532&ZY2=356 (accessed April 11, 2012). 14 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Definition of FEMA Flood Zone Designations (2011). 15 City of Glendale, City of Glendale General Plan, Safety Element, http://www.ci.glendale.ca.us/planning/pdf_files/safety_element/safety_element.pdf (accessed April 11, 2012)





No Impact


54

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

Discussion

No Impact. The project is consistent with plans and goals adopted by the City of Glendale. The proposed project includes the installation and operation of four, 90-foot-tall light poles along the perimeter of the running track and the development of a 1,500 sf one-story restroom and storage facility. The proposed project would not introduce new uses to the project site, rather the proposed project would allow for the extended use of the project site by existing uses. Specifically, operation of field lighting would allow for HHS sports team practices that currently conclude at dusk be extended approximately 30 minutes to 1 hour in order for practice to be properly concluded and athletes to depart in a safe manner. Use of the proposed field lighting by outside sports group would require a Facilities Use Permit issued by GUSD, similar to existing conditions that would establish the allowable hours of use. Additionally, the practice field and track would continue to be available to local residents for informal recreational uses (i.e., walking, jogging uses), similar to the existing conditions. The proposed project is not in conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Therefore, no impact would occur.

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

Discussion

No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan, as there are none regulating activities within City of Glendale. The proposed project site is not located within or in the vicinity of a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Therefore, there would be no impact.

SECTION XI. Mineral Resources




No Impact


55

XI. MINERAL RESOURCES

Would the project:

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

(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?

Discussion

No Impact. The project site is developed a grass field and a dirt running track. No mining operations or mineral production occur on the project site or within the proposed project area. The City’s General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element identifies the project site as being in Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) 3, an area containing mineral deposits that significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data. Although the project site may contain mineral deposits, because no mining operation or mineral production activities occur on the project site, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or locally important mineral resource recovery site. Additionally, implementation of the proposed project would not preclude future mineral resource recovery activities from occurring on the project site. As the proposed project would have no impact on mineral resources.

XII. NOISE

Would the project:

(a) Result in the 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?

Discussion

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would not generate any additional student population or vehicle trips to the campus that would generate noise. Noise sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the proposed project are the residential uses located immediately to the west and adjacent to the practice field, and the residential uses located to the north across from Olmstead Drive. Glendale Municipal Code Section 8.36.040 establishes daytime residential exterior noise levels at 55 dBA, and evening exterior noise levels at45 dBA.

The construction activities associated with the proposed project could result in a small but temporary increase in ambient noise levels. Construction noise could be generated by dirt haulers, concrete mixers, materials delivery and on-site movement, and hand and power tools such as hammers, skill saws, pneumatic nail guns, and power drills, as well as by the arrival and departure of construction laborers and the on-site servicing of equipment. The City of Glendale Municipal Code Section 8.36.080 allows for noise resulting from construction activities to be exempt from noise limits established in the Code. In





No Impact


56

accordance with the Noise Ordinance, construction activities would also be limited to the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM on Monday through Saturday, and is prohibited on Sundays and federal holidays. As construction would not occur except during the times permitted in the Noise Ordinance, and as the Municipal Code Section 8.36.080 allows construction noise in excess of standards to occur between these hours, the proposed project would not violate established standards.

Operation of the proposed project would not involve new uses at the HHS practice field, rather, proposed project would allow for the extended use of the project site by existing uses. Specifically, operation of field lighting would allow for HHS sports team practices that currently conclude at dusk be extended approximately 30 minutes to 1 hour in order for practice to be properly concluded and athletes to depart in a safe manner. Use of the proposed field lighting by outside sports group would require a Facilities Use Permit issued by GUSD, similar to existing conditions that would establish the allowable hours of use. It is anticipated that the field lights would not be in use past the hour of 10:00 PM at anytime. Therefore, night time use that would utilize the field lighting would not result in new noise sources associated with uses on the practice field, but would result in changes to when these uses typically occur, as evening uses could more easily be accommodated. City of Glendale Municipal Code Section 8.36.290(b) (Exemptions) specifically allows for:

Activities conducted on public parks or playgrounds and public or private school grounds including but not limited to school athletic and school entertainment events or outdoor activities such as public dances, shows, sporting events, and entertainment events provided such events are conducted pursuant to a permit issued by the City where otherwise required.

Therefore, night time use that would utilize the field lighting would not result in new noise sources associated with uses on the practice field, but would result in changes to when these uses typically occur, as evening uses could more easily be accommodated. This impact would be less than significant.

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

Discussion

Less-Than-Significant Impact. Vibration generated by construction-related activities on the proposed project area would be restricted by the requirements of the City’s noise ordinance pursuant to the provisions of Municipal Code Section 8.36.080. The proposed project would comply with all the cited sections of the Municipal Code. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not be expected to result in significant vibration-related environmental effects during the construction period. As such, implementation of the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact.

SECTION XII. Noise




No Impact


57

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

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

Discussion

Less-Than-Significant Impact. Construction-related activities associated with the proposed project would be restricted by the requirements of the City’s noise ordinance pursuant to the provisions of Municipal Code Section 8.36.080.

The proposed project includes installation of lighting at the HHS practice field which would allow for HHS sports team practices that currently conclude at dusk be extended approximately 30 minutes to 1 hour in order for practice to be properly concluded, as well as permitted community use. No other operational changes are proposed with implementation of the proposed project. As the proposed project would not increase bleacher capacity at the practice field, a permanent change (or increase) in traffic would not occur as a result of the proposed project. As a result, the existing ambient noise levels would not be substantially changed as a result of a change (or increase) in ambient vehicle noise.

Off-site single-family residential uses directly adjacent to the practice field to the east would experience temporary increases in noise levels during practice or community use events. However, this increase in noise levels would be temporary in nature, as the noise increases would only occur during the evenings that the practice field would be utilized. Further, the identified increased noise levels would not be continuous noise, but rather peaks that would occur sporadically throughout the events, and would typically last for less than 5 minutes. Once the practice event ended, the noise generated by such an event would also end. As the proposed project would not result in a permanent increase in ambient noise levels, this impact would be less than significant.

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

(f) If within the vicinity of a private airstrip, result in the exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

Discussion

No Impact. The proposed project site is located approximately 8 miles southeast of the Bob Hope Airport, located at 2627 North Hollywood Way in the City of Burbank. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels from private or public airport, and no impact would occur.





No Impact


58

XIII. POPULATION/HOUSING

Would the project:

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

Discussion

No Impact. The project site is developed a grass field and a dirt running track. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the installation and operation of field lighting and the construction of a 1,500 sf restroom/storage facility intended to improve conditions on the existing HHS practice field. As the proposed project does not include a residential component or other elements that would either directly or indirectly induce population growth, no impact would occur.

(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?

Discussion

No Impact. The project site is developed a grass field and a dirt running track. No housing currently occurs on the project site. As such, implementation of the proposed project would result in the displacement of existing house or people, and no impact would occur.

XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES (a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or

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

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

Discussion

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The project site is developed a grass field and a dirt running track. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the installation and operation of field lighting and the construction of a 1,500 sf restroom/storage facility intended to better accommodate existing HHS practice field users. Accordingly, the proposed project would not introduce new uses to the project site, rather the proposed project would allow for the extended use of the project site by existing uses. As

SECTION XV. Recreation




No Impact


59

such, the proposed project does not include any elements that would result in increased demand for public services and a less-than-significant impact would occur.

XV. RECREATION Would the project:

(a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

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

Discussion

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The project site is developed a grass field and a dirt running track. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the installation and operation of field lighting and the construction of a 1,500 sf restroom/storage facility intended to better accommodate existing HHS practice field users. The proposed project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks and does include the construction or expansion recreational facilities that would result in adverse physical effects on the environment. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact to recreation would occur as a result of the proposed project.

XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC

Would the project:

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

Discussion

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would not, in itself, create new vehicle trips; operation of field lighting would not result in a substantial increase in the number of vehicle trips associated with event attendance at the practice field, as events including community uses currently occur at the campus. However, the operation of lighting at the practice field would allow events to occur in the evenings as opposed to existing conditions where events are typically held in the afternoon. Operation of the proposed project would not generate any new traffic to the Hoover High School Campus or the City of Glendale. The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, ordinance, or policy and, therefore, impacts would be less than significant.





No Impact


60

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

Discussion

No Impact. The proposed project would not introduce new uses to the project site, rather the proposed project would allow for the extended use of the project site by existing uses. Specifically, operation of field lighting would allow for HHS sports team practices that currently conclude at dusk be extended approximately 30 minutes to 1 hour in order for practice to be properly concluded and athletes to depart in a safe manner. Use of the proposed field lighting by outside sports group would require a Facilities Use Permit issued by GUSD, similar to existing conditions. Therefore, no impact would occur.

(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?

Discussion

No Impact. The proposed project site is located approximately 8 miles southeast of the Bob Hope Airport, located at 2627 North Hollywood Way in the City of Burbank. Bob Hope Airport is governed by the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission Comprehensive Land Use Plan guidelines. This document is intended to provide for reasonable, safe, and efficient use of the airport as a public transportation facility, provide a base for aviation and aviation-related operations, and protect the municipal environment from the effects of aircraft noise. According to the Bob Hope Airport Influence Area Map, the proposed project site is not located in an airport land use plan area. The proposed project does not include an aviation component, and would not change air traffic patterns. No impact would occur.

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

(e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public

transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

Discussion

No Impact. Implementation of practice field lighting would not increase hazards due to a design feature or compatible use, result in inadequate emergency access, or conflict with adopted policies plans or programs regarding transit, and no impact would occur. Because the proposed project would result in the operation of lighting at the practice field on the HHS Campus and does not include modifications to existing design features or emergency access, no impact would occur.

SECTION XVII. Utilities/Service Systems




No Impact


61

XVII. UTILITIES/SERVICE SYSTEMS

Would the project:

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

Discussion

Less-Than-Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the installation and operation of field lighting and the construction of a 1,500 sf restroom/storage facility intended to better accommodate existing HHS practice field users. The 1,500 sf restroom and storage facility would include restroom, storage, electrical, and custodial uses. The restroom would be developed with 6 sinks, seven toilets, three urinals, one drinking fountain and one mop sink. The Glendale Public Works Department (GPWD) provides sewer collection and treatment services in the City. Sewage from the City is treated by the City of Los Angeles Hyperion System, which includes the Los Angeles/Glendale Water Reclamation Plant, located outside the Glendale City limits in Los Angeles, and the Hyperion Treatment Plant, located in Playa del Rey. The City and the City of Los Angeles jointly own and share operating capacity of the Los Angeles/Glendale Water Reclamation Plant. Any City sewage not treated at the Los Angeles/Glendale Water Reclamation Plant is treated at the Hyperion Treatment Plant. As the proposed project would not increase student population at the HHS Campus, the proposed project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements and this impact would be less than significant.

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

Discussion

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project site is located in an area served by an existing sewer collection and conveyance system, all of which are maintained by the GPWD. The new restroom associated with the project would connect to this existing system, which involves coordination with the GPWD regarding design, operation, and maintenance. All utility connections to the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable Uniform Codes, City ordinances, Public Works standards, and Water Division criteria. Since the overall student population will not change, there will not be a net increase in wastewater generation. As such, construction of facilities or expansion of existing facilities would not be required. Impacts would be less than significant.





No Impact


62

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

Discussion

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The HHS practice field is located in a developed area of the City of Glendale, which contains an existing stormwater collection and conveyance system. Development of the proposed project would reduce the amount of impervious coverage on other portions of the site where the restroom facility and light fixtures are proposed. The modification of impervious surfaces may reduce alteration of the existing stormwater drainage collection systems. As part of the proposed project, stormwater drainage plans will comply with regulatory requirements. Compliance with the Municipal Stormwater NPDES Permit would ensure that the capacity of the existing storm drainage infrastructure serving the project site would not be diminished and impacts of the proposed project to the storm drain system would be less than significant.

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

Discussion

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would increase water demand by a minor amount due to the new restroom at the proposed project site. The Campus’ water supply would adequately supply the new restroom’s water needed and, therefore, would have a less-than-significant impact to water supply.

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

Discussion

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project site is located in an area served by an existing sewer collection and conveyance system, all of which are maintained by the GPWD. The new restroom associated with the project would connect to this existing system, which involves coordination with the GPWD regarding design, operation, and maintenance. All utility connections to the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable Uniform Codes, City ordinances, Public Works standards, and Water Division criteria. Since the overall student population will not change, there will not be a net increase in wastewater generation. Impacts would be less than significant.

SECTION XVII. Utilities/Service Systems




No Impact


63

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

Discussion

Less-Than-Significant Impact. Operation of the proposed project would not generate solid waste at the proposed project site other than minor landscaping cuttings. Construction activity related solid waste would be disposed of at the landfills that serve the City of Glendale. The construction related solid waste contribution to any of the landfills under the proposed project would be less than 0.1 percent. The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) requires city and county jurisdictions to identify an implementation schedule to divert 50 percent of the total waste stream from landfill disposal by the year 2000 and 70 percent by the year 2020. In addition, given current and future landfill capacity, the solid waste impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed project would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

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

Discussion

Less-Than-Significant Impact. A significant impact would occur if the proposed project were to generate solid waste that is not disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. As stated above, the proposed project would result in a significant increase in the demand for solid waste services compared to existing conditions. As under current conditions, solid waste generated on site would be disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations related to solid waste. In addition, as the proposed project site is located within California, it would be required to comply with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) which was enacted to reduce, recycle, and reuse solid waste generated in the state to the maximum amount feasible. Specifically, the Act requires city and county jurisdictions to identify an implementation schedule to divert 50 percent of the total waste stream from landfill disposal by the year 2000 and 70 percent by the year 2020. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

(h) Require or result in the construction of new energy production or transmission facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause a significant environmental impact?

Discussion

Less-Than-Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would increase the use of electricity for operation of the field lights and the restroom facility. The Proposed project would comply with the provisions of Title 24 of the CCR and would be designed to conserve energy. It is anticipated that the electricity demand generated by the proposed project could be supplied without the need for additional construction or expansion of energy facilities. Therefore, this impact for the proposed project would be less than significant.





No Impact


64

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

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

Discussion

Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project site is located within an urban and fully developed area, and would not have an impact on the habitat or population level of fish or wildlife species; threaten a plant or animal community; or impact the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. Although the remote possibility exists for the discovery of previously unknown archaeological resources, paleontological resources, or human remains during excavation and grading activities, as compliance with existing laws and regulations would ensure that the proposed project impact remain less than significant.

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

Discussion

Less-Than-Significant Impact. As the proposed project would have no impact or a less-than-significant impact to all CEQA issue areas and the proposed project would be isolated to the HHS practice field and the Campus, cumulatively considerable impacts would not occur. Cumulative impacts are not anticipated as a result of the proposed project, and would be considered less than significant.

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

Discussion

Less-Than-Significant Impact. As disclosed throughout this ND, the proposed project would not have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, as no impacts were determined to be significant. Accordingly, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to substantial adverse effects on human beings.

References


65

REFERENCES California Department of Conservation. California Geological Survey—Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault

Zone, January 2010. http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/download/ap/pdf/BURBANK.PDF (accessed April 3, 2012)

———. Seismic Hazard Factsheet, 2008.

California Education Codes 17212 and 17212.5.

California Stormwater Quality Association. Handbook for New Development and Redevelopment, 2003.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. Definition of FEMA Flood Zone Designations, 2011.

———. Map Service Center—FEMA-Issued Flood Maps (Map ID 06037C1790F, Los Angeles Co Uninc & Inc Areas), 2008. http://map1.msc.fema.gov/idms/IntraView.cgi?ROT=0&O_X=7204&O_Y=5224&O_ZM=0.056949&O_SX=820&O_SY=595&O_DPI=400&O_TH=49697313&O_EN=49697313&O_PG=1&O_MP=1&CT=0&DI=0&WD=14408&HT=10448&JX=1362&JY=655&MPT=0&MPS=0&ACT=0&KEY=49636055&ITEM=1&ZX1=324&ZY1=172&ZX2=532&ZY2=356 (accessed April 11, 2012).

Geotracker. Database search. http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=651+Glenwood+Road%2C+Glendale+CA (accessed April 11, 2012).

Glendale, City of. City of Glendale General Plan. Open Space and Conservation Element. http://www.ci.glendale.ca.us/planning/pdf_files/GeneralPlan/OpenSpace/1993%20Open%20Space%20and%20Conservation%20Element%20with%20Amendments.pdf (accessed April 10, 2012)

———. City of Glendale General Plan. Safety Element. http://www.ci.glendale.ca.us/planning/pdf_files/safety_element/safety_element.pdf. (Accessed April 11, 2012)

Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission. Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Figure (Burbank/Glendale/Pasadena Airport Influence Area Map), December 2011. http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/data/pd_alup.pdf (accessed March 23, 2012).

Rubio, Mark. Personal communication with Assistant Principle, Hoover High School, March 29, 2012

Winfrey, Michael, Email communication with Musco Sports Lighting LLC, February 10, 2012.

Appendix A Air Quality CalEEMod Modeling Data

tblProjectCharacteristics

ProjectName LocationScope EMFAC_ID WindSpeed PrecipitationFrequency100027457 Hoover HS Field Light Project AD SCAQMD 2.2 31

ClimateZone UrbanizationLevel OperationalYear UtilityCompany CO2IntensityFactor9 Urban 2012 Glendale Water & Power 1065

CH4IntensityFactor N2OIntensityFactor TotalPopulation TotalLotAcreage UsingHistoricalEnergyUseData0.029 0.011 0 1.03 0

Page 1

tblPollutants

PollutantSelection PollutantFullName PollutantName1 Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) ROG1 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) NOX1 Carbon Monoxide (CO) CO1 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) SO21 Particulate Matter 10um (PM10) PM101 Particulate Matter 2.5um (PM2.5) PM2_51 Fugitive PM10um (PM10) PM10_FUG1 Fugitive PM2.5um (PM2.5) PM25_FUG1 Total Organic Gases (TOG) TOG1 Lead (Pb) PB1 Biogenic Carbon Dioxide (CO2) CO2_BIO1 Non-Biogenic Carbon Dioxide (CO2) CO2_NBIO1 Carbon Dioxide (CO2) CO21 Methane (CH4) CH41 Nitrous Oxide (N2O) N2O1 CO2 Equivalent GHGs (CO2e) CO2E

Page 2

tblLandUse

LandUseType LandUseSubType LandUseUnitAmount LandUseSizeMetric LotAcreage LandUseSquareFeet PopulationCommercial User Defined Commercial 1500 User Defined Unit 0.03 1500 0Recreational City Park 1 Acre 1 0 0

Page 3

tblConstructionPhase

PhaseNumber PhaseName PhaseType PhaseStartDate PhaseEndDate NumDaysWeek NumDays PhaseDescription1 Grading Grading 2012/06/18 2012/07/13 5 202 Trenching Trenching 2012/07/14 2012/07/30 5 113 Paving Paving 2012/07/31 2012/08/06 5 54 Building Construction Building Construction 2012/08/07 2012/09/04 5 215 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 2012/09/05 2012/09/25 5 15

Page 4

tblOffRoadEquipment

PhaseName OffRoadEquipmentType OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount UsageHours HorsePower LoadFactorDemolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8 81 0.73Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 75 0.55

Grading Graders 1 6 162 0.61Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7 75 0.55Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 6 9 0.56Paving Pavers 1 6 89 0.62Paving Paving Equipment 1 8 82 0.53Paving Rollers 1 7 84 0.56Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8 75 0.55

Building Construction Cranes 1 6 208 0.43Building Construction Forklifts 1 6 149 0.3Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8 84 0.74Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6 75 0.55Building Construction Welders 1 8 46 0.45Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6 78 0.48

Page 5

tblTripsAndVMT

PhaseName WorkerTripNumber VendorTripNumber HaulingTripNumber WorkerTripLengthGrading 8 0 19 12.7

Trenching 0 12.7Paving 13 0 0 12.7

Building Construction 0 0 0 12.7Architectural Coating 0 0 0 12.7

VendorTripLength HaulingTripLength WorkerVehicleClass VendorVehicleClass HaulingVehicleClass7.4 20 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT7.4 20 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT7.4 20 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT7.4 20 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT7.4 20 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Page 6

tblOnRoadDust

PhaseName WorkerPercentPave VendorPercentPave HaulingPercentPave RoadSiltLoadingGrading 100 100 100 0.1

Trenching 100 100 100 0.1Paving 100 100 100 0.1

Building Construction 100 100 100 0.1Architectural Coating 100 100 100 0.1

MaterialSiltContent MaterialMoistureContent AverageVehicleWeight MeanVehicleSpeed8.5 0.5 2.4 408.5 0.5 2.4 408.5 0.5 2.4 408.5 0.5 2.4 408.5 0.5 2.4 40

Page 7

tblDemolition

PhaseName DemolitionSizeMetric DemolitionUnitAmount

Page 8

tblGrading

PhaseName MaterialImported MaterialExported GradingSizeMetric ImportExportPhasedGrading 0 150 Cubic Yards 0

MeanVehicleSpeed AcresOfGrading MaterialMoistureContentBulldozing MaterialMoistureContentTruckLoading MaterialSiltContent7.1 7.5 7.9 12 6.9

Page 9

tblArchitecturalCoating

PhaseName ArchitecturalCoatingStartDate ArchitecturalCoatingEndDate EF_Residential_InteriorArchitectural Coating 2008/07/01 3000/12/31 50

ConstArea_Residential_Interior EF_Residential_Exterior ConstArea_Residential_Exterior EF_Nonresidential_Interior0 100 0 250

ConstArea_Nonresidential_Interior EF_Nonresidential_Exterior ConstArea_Nonresidential_Exterior2250 250 750

Page 10

tblPaving

ParkingLotAcreage

Page 11

tblVehicleTrips

VehicleTripsLandUseSubType VehicleTripsLandUseSizeMetric WD_TR ST_TR SU_TR HW_TL HS_TL HO_TL CC_TL CW_TLCity Park Acre 0 0 0 0 0 0 13.3 8.9

User Defined Commercial User Defined Unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 13.3 8.9

CNW_TL PR_TP DV_TP PB_TP HW_TTP HS_TTP HO_TTP CC_TTP CW_TTP CNW_TTP7.4 66 28 6 0 0 0 48 33 197.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Page 12

tblVehicleEF

Season EmissionType LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MHA FleetMix 0.508948 0.076636 0.228152 0.105457 0.020538 0.006 0.01482 0.026898 0.001123 0.0017 0.006037 0.000907 0.002784A CH4_IDLEX 0 0 0 0 0.0015 0.0013 0.0009 0.11 0.0012 0 0 0.03 0A CH4_RUNEX 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.22 0.03 0.04A CH4_STREX 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.1 0.03 0.07 0.14 0.03 0.05A CO_IDLEX 0 0 0 0 0.21 0.19 0.14 9.81 0.18 0 0 5.42 0A CO_RUNEX 1.91 3.01 2.72 3.38 3.22 1.88 2.76 5.36 3.12 8.58 34.49 7.21 9.49A CO_STREX 4.13 5.03 5.47 6.95 6.71 4.67 6.47 26.95 9.71 17.28 9.68 7.04 13.67A CO2_IDLEX 0 0 0 0 7.6665 8.1605 11.9985 1322.324 10.6495 0 0 527.003 0A CO2_RUNEX 359.214 445.246 454.879 619.875 611.572 580.545 1295.686 1717.049 1132.9225 2059.7235 145.4735 1333.6005 706.173A CO2_STREX 66.899 82.0705 83.9325 115.1115 36.4705 30.1625 13.699 17.6605 21.3275 42.047 46.1985 17.841 34.694A NOX_IDLEX 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.04 0.18 23.87 0.11 0 0 8.64 0A NOX_RUNEX 0.16 0.27 0.33 0.44 1.43 2.73 6.44 12.1 4.01 15.48 1.18 9.84 1.93A NOX_STREX 0.27 0.31 0.52 0.66 1.65 1.38 0.69 2.66 1.29 1.99 0.3 0.43 1.16A PM10_IDLEX 0 0 0 0 0.0002 0.0006 0.0022 0.3 0.0014 0 0 0.11 0A PM10_PMBW 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.0063 0.01 0.01A PM10_PMTW 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.0092 0.004 0.01 0.01A PM10_RUNEX 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.17 0.57 0.09 0.24 0.03 0.38 0.01A PM10_STREX 0.0061 0.0071 0.01 0.01 0.0023 0.0021 0.0012 0.002 0.002 0.0035 0.01 0.0011 0.0009A PM25_IDLEX 0 0 0 0 0.0002 0.0005 0.002 0.27 0.0013 0 0 0.11 0A PM25_PMBW 0.0054 0.0054 0.0054 0.0054 0.0054 0.0054 0.0054 0.01 0.0054 0.0054 0.0027 0.0054 0.0054A PM25_PMTW 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.0088 0.003 0.0023 0.001 0.003 0.003A PM25_RUNEX 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.52 0.08 0.22 0.02 0.35 0.01A PM25_STREX 0.0057 0.0066 0.01 0.01 0.0021 0.0019 0.001 0.0018 0.0018 0.0033 0.01 0.0009 0.0008A ROG_DIURN 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0027 0.0019 0.0008 0.001 0.0008 0.008 0.91 0.0081 1.62A ROG_HTSK 0.16 0.18 0.16 0.15 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.14 0.35 0.05 0.09A ROG_IDLEX 0 0 0 0 0.03 0.03 0.02 2.37 0.02 0 0 0.75 0A ROG_RESTL 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.0009 0.0006 0.0003 0.0004 0.0003 0.0041 0.49 0.0031 0.59A ROG_RUNEX 0.05 0.11 0.07 0.12 0.22 0.16 0.2 1.06 0.18 1.11 3.12 0.57 0.29A ROG_RUNLS 0.082277 0.126344 0.124541 0.117192 0.381163 0.258915 0.10958 0.015457 0.164927 0.033678 0.414063 0.053695 0.01864A ROG_STREX 0.34 0.38 0.43 0.62 0.55 0.42 0.49 1.78 0.62 1.3 2.2 0.52 0.85A SO2_IDLEX 0 0 0 0 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.01 0.0001 0 0 0.0053 0A SO2_RUNEX 0.0038 0.0047 0.0048 0.0065 0.0062 0.0059 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.0021 0.01 0.0073A SO2_STREX 0.0008 0.0009 0.001 0.0013 0.0005 0.0004 0.0003 0.0006 0.0004 0.0007 0.0007 0.0003 0.0006A TOG_DIURN 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0027 0.0019 0.0008 0.001 0.0008 0.008 0.91 0.0081 1.62A TOG_HTSK 0.16 0.18 0.16 0.15 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.14 0.35 0.05 0.09A TOG_IDLEX 0 0 0 0 0.03 0.03 0.02 2.7 0.03 0 0 0.82 0A TOG_RESTL 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.0009 0.0006 0.0003 0.0004 0.0003 0.0041 0.49 0.0031 0.59A TOG_RUNEX 0.08 0.14 0.11 0.16 0.25 0.18 0.23 1.2 0.21 1.22 3.39 0.63 0.34A TOG_RUNLS 0.082277 0.126344 0.124541 0.117192 0.381163 0.258915 0.10958 0.015457 0.164927 0.033678 0.414063 0.053695 0.01864A TOG_STREX 0.37 0.4 0.45 0.66 0.59 0.45 0.53 1.91 0.66 1.38 2.37 0.55 0.92S FleetMix 0.508948 0.076636 0.228152 0.105457 0.020538 0.006 0.01482 0.026898 0.001123 0.0017 0.006037 0.000907 0.002784S CH4_IDLEX 0 0 0 0 0.0015 0.0013 0.0009 0.1 0.0012 0 0 0.03 0S CH4_RUNEX 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.22 0.03 0.04S CH4_STREX 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.09 0.03 0.06 0.12 0.02 0.04S CO_IDLEX 0 0 0 0 0.21 0.19 0.14 7.14 0.18 0 0 5.42 0

Page 13

tblVehicleEF

Season EmissionType LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MHS CO_RUNEX 2.11 3.23 3 3.68 3.28 1.9 2.77 5.38 3.16 8.62 32.63 7.12 9.6S CO_STREX 3.15 3.87 4.16 5.31 5.21 3.67 5.37 23.15 7.84 14.44 8.65 5.99 10.61S CO2_IDLEX 0 0 0 0 7.6665 8.1605 11.9985 1397.678 10.6495 0 0 527.003 0S CO2_RUNEX 383.401 473.347 484.348 660.136 611.572 580.545 1295.686 1717.049 1132.9225 2059.7235 145.4735 1333.6005 706.173S CO2_STREX 66.899 82.0705 83.9325 115.1115 36.4705 30.1625 13.699 17.6605 21.3275 42.047 46.1985 17.841 34.694S NOX_IDLEX 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.04 0.18 24.71 0.11 0 0 8.64 0S NOX_RUNEX 0.15 0.26 0.32 0.42 1.41 2.72 6.42 12.1 3.97 15.4 1.12 9.8 1.88S NOX_STREX 0.25 0.28 0.47 0.6 1.58 1.32 0.66 2.54 1.24 1.89 0.29 0.4 1.11S PM10_IDLEX 0 0 0 0 0.0002 0.0006 0.0022 0.25 0.0014 0 0 0.11 0S PM10_PMBW 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.0063 0.01 0.01S PM10_PMTW 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.0092 0.004 0.01 0.01S PM10_RUNEX 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.17 0.57 0.09 0.24 0.03 0.38 0.01S PM10_STREX 0.0061 0.0071 0.01 0.01 0.0023 0.0021 0.0012 0.002 0.002 0.0035 0.01 0.0011 0.0009S PM25_IDLEX 0 0 0 0 0.0002 0.0005 0.002 0.23 0.0013 0 0 0.11 0S PM25_PMBW 0.0054 0.0054 0.0054 0.0054 0.0054 0.0054 0.0054 0.01 0.0054 0.0054 0.0027 0.0054 0.0054S PM25_PMTW 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.0088 0.003 0.0023 0.001 0.003 0.003S PM25_RUNEX 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.52 0.08 0.22 0.02 0.35 0.01S PM25_STREX 0.0057 0.0066 0.01 0.01 0.0021 0.0019 0.001 0.0018 0.0018 0.0033 0.01 0.0009 0.0008S ROG_DIURN 0.19 0.2 0.19 0.19 0.0044 0.003 0.0013 0.0017 0.0012 0.01 1.75 0.01 2.58S ROG_HTSK 0.18 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.43 0.05 0.1S ROG_IDLEX 0 0 0 0 0.03 0.03 0.02 2.23 0.02 0 0 0.75 0S ROG_RESTL 0.11 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.0016 0.0011 0.0006 0.0009 0.0006 0.0071 0.99 0.0055 1.02S ROG_RUNEX 0.06 0.11 0.08 0.12 0.23 0.16 0.2 1.06 0.18 1.12 2.98 0.57 0.3S ROG_RUNLS 0.078853 0.119603 0.117316 0.110652 0.373059 0.252532 0.108424 0.015461 0.162009 0.031854 0.391118 0.049599 0.01829S ROG_STREX 0.28 0.31 0.35 0.51 0.47 0.36 0.42 1.52 0.54 1.15 1.89 0.44 0.7S SO2_IDLEX 0 0 0 0 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.01 0.0001 0 0 0.0053 0S SO2_RUNEX 0.0041 0.005 0.0051 0.0069 0.0062 0.0059 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.0021 0.01 0.0073S SO2_STREX 0.0008 0.0009 0.0009 0.0013 0.0005 0.0004 0.0002 0.0006 0.0004 0.0007 0.0007 0.0003 0.0005S TOG_DIURN 0.19 0.2 0.19 0.19 0.0044 0.003 0.0013 0.0017 0.0012 0.01 1.75 0.01 2.58S TOG_HTSK 0.18 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.43 0.05 0.1S TOG_IDLEX 0 0 0 0 0.03 0.03 0.02 2.54 0.03 0 0 0.82 0S TOG_RESTL 0.11 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.0016 0.0011 0.0006 0.0009 0.0006 0.0071 0.99 0.0055 1.02S TOG_RUNEX 0.08 0.14 0.11 0.16 0.26 0.18 0.23 1.2 0.21 1.24 3.25 0.63 0.34S TOG_RUNLS 0.078853 0.119603 0.117316 0.110652 0.373059 0.252532 0.108424 0.015461 0.162009 0.031854 0.391118 0.049599 0.01829S TOG_STREX 0.3 0.33 0.38 0.55 0.5 0.39 0.45 1.63 0.57 1.23 2.04 0.48 0.75W FleetMix 0.508948 0.076636 0.228152 0.105457 0.020538 0.006 0.01482 0.026898 0.001123 0.0017 0.006037 0.000907 0.002784W CH4_IDLEX 0 0 0 0 0.0015 0.0013 0.0009 0.11 0.0012 0 0 0.03 0W CH4_RUNEX 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.23 0.03 0.04W CH4_STREX 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.1 0.03 0.07 0.14 0.03 0.05W CO_IDLEX 0 0 0 0 0.21 0.19 0.14 13.57 0.18 0 0 5.42 0W CO_RUNEX 1.84 2.92 2.62 3.26 3.21 1.87 2.76 5.35 3.11 8.57 34.67 7.24 9.48W CO_STREX 4.23 5.15 5.61 7.12 6.79 4.73 6.49 26.99 9.75 17.39 9.73 7.37 13.68W CO2_IDLEX 0 0 0 0 7.6665 8.1605 11.9985 1216.8265 10.6495 0 0 527.003 0W CO2_RUNEX 348.954 433.3615 442.415 602.8415 611.572 580.545 1295.686 1717.049 1132.9225 2059.7235 145.4735 1333.6005 706.173W CO2_STREX 66.899 82.0705 83.9325 115.1115 36.4705 30.1625 13.699 17.6605 21.3275 42.047 46.1985 17.841 34.694

Page 14

tblVehicleEF

Season EmissionType LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MHW NOX_IDLEX 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.04 0.18 22.69 0.11 0 0 8.64 0W NOX_RUNEX 0.18 0.3 0.37 0.49 1.56 2.92 6.9 12.93 4.33 16.57 1.32 10.5 2.13W NOX_STREX 0.28 0.31 0.52 0.66 1.65 1.38 0.69 2.66 1.3 1.99 0.3 0.44 1.17W PM10_IDLEX 0 0 0 0 0.0002 0.0006 0.0022 0.37 0.0014 0 0 0.11 0W PM10_PMBW 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.0063 0.01 0.01W PM10_PMTW 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.0092 0.004 0.01 0.01W PM10_RUNEX 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.17 0.57 0.09 0.24 0.03 0.38 0.01W PM10_STREX 0.0061 0.0071 0.01 0.01 0.0023 0.0021 0.0012 0.002 0.002 0.0035 0.01 0.0011 0.0009W PM25_IDLEX 0 0 0 0 0.0002 0.0005 0.002 0.34 0.0013 0 0 0.11 0W PM25_PMBW 0.0054 0.0054 0.0054 0.0054 0.0054 0.0054 0.0054 0.01 0.0054 0.0054 0.0027 0.0054 0.0054W PM25_PMTW 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.0088 0.003 0.0023 0.001 0.003 0.003W PM25_RUNEX 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.52 0.08 0.22 0.02 0.35 0.01W PM25_STREX 0.0057 0.0066 0.01 0.01 0.0021 0.0019 0.001 0.0018 0.0018 0.0033 0.01 0.0009 0.0008W ROG_DIURN 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.0038 0.0026 0.0011 0.0014 0.001 0.01 1.2 0.01 2.27W ROG_HTSK 0.2 0.21 0.19 0.18 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.19 0.49 0.07 0.13W ROG_IDLEX 0 0 0 0 0.03 0.03 0.02 2.57 0.02 0 0 0.75 0W ROG_RESTL 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.0008 0.0006 0.0003 0.0004 0.0003 0.0042 0.41 0.0031 0.59W ROG_RUNEX 0.05 0.11 0.07 0.11 0.22 0.16 0.2 1.06 0.18 1.1 3.13 0.57 0.29W ROG_RUNLS 0.093176 0.14806 0.147529 0.138212 0.415701 0.283696 0.116097 0.016239 0.17596 0.039113 0.483873 0.063108 0.019674W ROG_STREX 0.35 0.38 0.43 0.63 0.55 0.42 0.49 1.78 0.62 1.3 2.22 0.54 0.86W SO2_IDLEX 0 0 0 0 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.01 0.0001 0 0 0.0053 0W SO2_RUNEX 0.0037 0.0046 0.0046 0.0063 0.0062 0.0059 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.0021 0.01 0.0073W SO2_STREX 0.0008 0.0009 0.001 0.0013 0.0005 0.0004 0.0003 0.0006 0.0004 0.0007 0.0007 0.0003 0.0006W TOG_DIURN 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.0038 0.0026 0.0011 0.0014 0.001 0.01 1.2 0.01 2.27W TOG_HTSK 0.2 0.21 0.19 0.18 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.19 0.49 0.07 0.13W TOG_IDLEX 0 0 0 0 0.03 0.03 0.02 2.93 0.03 0 0 0.82 0W TOG_RESTL 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.0008 0.0006 0.0003 0.0004 0.0003 0.0042 0.41 0.0031 0.59W TOG_RUNEX 0.08 0.14 0.1 0.15 0.25 0.18 0.23 1.2 0.21 1.22 3.41 0.63 0.34W TOG_RUNLS 0.093176 0.14806 0.147529 0.138212 0.415701 0.283696 0.116097 0.016239 0.17596 0.039113 0.483873 0.063108 0.019674W TOG_STREX 0.37 0.41 0.46 0.67 0.59 0.45 0.53 1.91 0.66 1.39 2.39 0.57 0.92

Page 15

tblRoadDust

RoadPercentPave RoadSiltLoading MaterialSiltContent MaterialMoistureContent MobileAverageVehicleWeight MeanVehicleSpeed100 0.1 4.3 0.5 2.4 40

Page 16

tblWoodstoves

WoodstovesLandUseSubType NumberConventional NumberCatalytic NumberNoncatalytic

NumberPellet WoodstoveDayYear WoodstoveWoodMass

Page 17

tblFireplaces

FireplacesLandUseSubType NumberWood NumberGas NumberPropane

NumberNoFireplace FireplaceHourDay FireplaceDayYear FireplaceWoodMass

Page 18

tblConsumerProducts

ROG_EF0.0000198

Page 19

tblAreaCoating

Area_EF_Residential_Interior Area_Residential_Interior Area_EF_Residential_Exterior Area_Residential_Exterior Area_EF_Nonresidential_Interior50 0 100 0 250

Area_Nonresidential_Interior Area_EF_Nonresidential_Exterior Area_Nonresidential_Exterior ReapplicationRatePercent2250 250 750 10

Page 20

tblLandscapeEquipment

NumberSnowDays NumberSummerDays0 365

Page 21

tblEnergyUse

EnergyUseLandUseSubType T24E NT24E LightingElect T24NG NT24NGCity Park 0 0 9375 0 0

User Defined Commercial 0 0 0 0 0

Page 22

tblWater

WaterLandUseSubType WaterLandUseSizeMetric IndoorWaterUseRate OutdoorWaterUseRateCity Park Acre 0 0

User Defined Commercial User Defined Unit 0 0

ElectricityIntensityFactorToSupply ElectricityIntensityFactorToTreat ElectricityIntensityFactorToDistribute ElectricityIntensityFactorForWastewaterTreatment9727 111 1272 19119727 111 1272 1911

SepticTankPercent AerobicPercent AnaerobicandFacultativeLagoonsPercent AnaDigestCombDigestGasPercent10 84.69 2.14 3.1710 84.69 2.14 3.17

AnaDigestCogenCombDigestGasPercent00

Page 23

tblSolidWaste

SolidWasteLandUseSubType SolidWasteLandUseSizeMetric SolidWasteGenerationRate LandfillNoGasCapture LandfillCaptureGasFlare LandfillCaptureGasEnergyRecoveryCity Park Acre 0 6 94 0

User Defined Commercial User Defined Unit 0 6 94 0

Page 24

tblLandUseChange

VegetationLandUseType VegetationLandUseSubType AcresBegin AcresEnd CO2peracre

Page 25

tblSequestration

BroadSpeciesClass NumberOfNewTrees CO2perTree

Page 26

tblConstEquipMitigation

ConstMitigationEquipmentType FuelType Tier NumberOfEquipmentMitigated TotalNumberOfEquipmentMitigated DPF OxidationCatalystAir Compressors Diesel 0 1 0

Cement and Mortar Mixers Diesel 0 1 0Concrete/Industrial Saws Diesel 0 1 0

Cranes Diesel 0 1 0Forklifts Diesel 0 1 0

Generator Sets Diesel 0 1 0Graders Diesel 0 1 0Pavers Diesel 0 1 0

Paving Equipment Diesel 0 1 0Rollers Diesel 0 1 0

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Diesel 0 6 0Welders Diesel 0 1 0

Page 27

tblConstDustMitigation

SoilStabilizerCheck SoilStabilizerPM10PercentReduction SoilStabilizerPM25PercentReduction ReplaceGroundCoverCheck0 0

ReplaceGroundCoverPM10PercentReduction ReplaceGroundCoverPM25PercentReduction WaterExposedAreaCheck WaterExposedAreaFrequency1 3

WaterExposedAreaPM10PercentReduction WaterExposedAreaPM25PercentReduction WaterUnpavedRoadMoistureContentCheck WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeedCheck61 61 0 0

WaterUnpavedRoadMoistureContent WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed CleanPavedRoadCheck CleanPavedRoadPercentReduction0

Page 28

tblLandUseMitigation

ProjectSetting IncreaseDensityCheck IncreaseDensityDUPerAcre IncreaseDensityJobPerAcre

IncreaseDiversityCheck ImproveWalkabilityDesignCheck ImproveWalkabilityDesignIntersections ImproveDestinationAccessibilityCheck

ImproveDestinationAccessibilityDistance IncreaseTransitAccessibilityCheck IncreaseTransitAccessibilityDistance IntegrateBelowMarketRateHousingCheck

IntegrateBelowMarketRateHousingDU ImprovePedestrianNetworkCheck ImprovePedestrianNetworkSelection ProvideTrafficCalmingMeasuresCheck

ProvideTrafficCalmingMeasuresPercentStreet ProvideTrafficCalmingMeasuresPercentIntersection ImplementNEVNetworkCheck LimitParkingSupplyCheck

LimitParkingSupplySpacePercentReduction UnbundleParkingCostCheck UnbundleParkingCostCost OnStreetMarketPricingCheck

OnStreetMarketPricingPricePercentIncrease ProvideBRTSystemCheck ProvideBRTSystemPercentBRT ExpandTransitNetworkCheck

ExpandTransitNetworkTransitCoveragePercentIncrease IncreaseTransitFrequencyCheck IncreaseTransitFrequencyImplementationLevel IncreaseTransitFrequencyHeadwaysPercentReduction

Page 29

tblCommuteMitigation

ImplementTripReductionProgramCheck ImplementTripReductionProgramPercentEmployee ImplementTripReductionProgramType TransitSubsidyCheck0 0

TransitSubsidyPercentEmployee TransitSubsidyDailySubsidyAmount ImplementEmployeeParkingCashOutCheck ImplementEmployeeParkingCashOutPercentEmployee0

WorkplaceParkingChargeCheck WorkplaceParkingChargePercentEmployee WorkplaceParkingChargeCost EncourageTelecommutingCheck0 0

EncourageTelecommutingPercentEmployee9_80 EncourageTelecommutingPercentEmployee4_40 EncourageTelecommutingPercentEmployee1_5days MarketCommuteTripReductionOptionCheck0

MarketCommuteTripReductionOptionPercentEmployee EmployeeVanpoolCheck EmployeeVanpoolPercentEmployee EmployeeVanpoolPercentModeShare0 2

ProvideRideSharingProgramCheck ProvideRideSharingProgramPercentEmployee ImplementSchoolBusProgramCheck ImplementSchoolBusProgramPercentFamilyUsing0 0

Page 30

tblAreaMitigation

LandscapeLawnmowerCheck LandscapeLawnmowerPercentElectric LandscapeLeafblowerCheck LandscapeLeafblowerPercentElectric0 0

LandscapeChainsawCheck LandscapeChainsawPercentElectric UseLowVOCPaintResidentialInteriorCheck UseLowVOCPaintResidentialInteriorValue0 0 50

UseLowVOCPaintResidentialExteriorCheck UseLowVOCPaintResidentialExteriorValue UseLowVOCPaintNonresidentialInteriorCheck UseLowVOCPaintNonresidentialInteriorValue0 100 0 250

UseLowVOCPaintNonresidentialExteriorCheck UseLowVOCPaintNonresidentialExteriorValue HearthOnlyNaturalGasHearthCheck NoHearthCheck0 250 0 0

UseLowVOCCleaningSuppliesCheck0

Page 31

tblEnergyMitigation

ExceedTitle24Check ExceedTitle24CheckPercentImprovement InstallHighEfficiencyLightingCheck InstallHighEfficiencyLightingPercentEnergyReduction OnSiteRenewableEnergyCheck

KwhGeneratedCheck KwhGenerated PercentOfElectricityUseGeneratedCheck PercentOfElectricityUseGenerated

Page 32

tblApplianceMitigation

ApplianceType ApplianceLandUseSubType PercentImprovementClothWasher 30DishWasher 15

Fan 50Refrigerator 15

Page 33

tblWaterMitigation

ApplyWaterConservationStrategyCheck ApplyWaterConservationStrategyPercentReductionIndoor ApplyWaterConservationStrategyPercentReductionOutdoor UseReclaimedWaterCheck0 0

PercentOutdoorReclaimedWaterUse PercentIndoorReclaimedWaterUse UseGreyWaterCheck PercentOutdoorGreyWaterUse0

PercentIndoorGreyWaterUse InstallLowFlowBathroomFaucetCheck PercentReductionInFlowBathroomFaucet InstallLowFlowKitchenFaucetCheck0 32 0

PercentReductionInFlowKitchenFaucet InstallLowFlowToiletCheck PercentReductionInFlowToilet InstallLowFlowShowerCheck18 0 20 0

PercentReductionInFlowShower TurfReductionCheck TurfReductionTurfArea TurfReductionPercentReduction20 0

UseWaterEfficientIrrigationSystemCheck UseWaterEfficientIrrigationSystemPercentReduction WaterEfficientLandscapeCheck MAWA0 6.1 0

ETWU

Page 34

tblWasteMitigation

InstituteRecyclingAndCompostingServicesCheck InstituteRecyclingAndCompostingServicesWastePercentReduction

Page 35

tblRemarks

SubModuleID PhaseName Season Remarks13 Project is Athletic Field Lighting and a 1,500-sf one-story restroom and storage facility4 Construction Schedule provided by Distirct5 Architectural Coating equipment provided by applicant5 Building Construction Equipment provided by applicant5 Paving Equipment provided by applicant5 Trenching Equipment provided by applicant912 Existing use, no new trips generated20 New field lights would utilize 9,375 KW/h per year21 Existing use, no new water usage.22 Existing use, no new solid waste generation25

Page 36

Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation -

Off-road Equipment - equipment provided by applicantGrading - Vehicle Trips - Existing use, no new trips generatedEnergy Use - New field lights would utilize 9,375 KW/h per yearWater And Wastewater - Existing use, no new water usage.Solid Waste - Existing use, no new solid waste generation

Project Characteristics - Land Use - Project is Athletic Field Lighting and a 1,500-sf one-story restroom and storage facilityConstruction Phase - Construction Schedule provided by DistirctOff-road Equipment - Equipment provided by applicantOff-road Equipment - Equipment provided by applicantOff-road Equipment - Equipment provided by applicant

Climate Zone 9 2.2Precipitation Freq (Days)

1.3 User Entered Comments 31

User Defined Commercial 1500 User Defined Unit

1.2 Other Project CharacteristicsUtility Company Glendale Water & Power

Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s)

1.1 Land Usage

Land Uses Size MetricCity Park 1 Acre

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2011.1.1 Date: 4/16/2012

100027457 Hoover HS Field Light ProjectSouth Coast AQMD Air District, Summer

1.0 Project Characteristics

02 Hoover HS Field Light Project (OUTPUT_Summer).xls 1 of 10

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Total 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mobile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

N2O CO2e

Category lb/day lb/day

Area 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4

Mitigated Operational

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive

PM2.5

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Total 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mobile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

N2O CO2e


Area 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00

Exhaust PM2.5


Unmitigated Operational



PM2.5

NA NA NA NA NA

2.2 Overall Operational

NA NA NA NA NA NATotal NA NA NA NA NA

0.00 2,147.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 2,153.220.72 1.72 1.92 0.00 1.72 1.72

N2O CO2e

Year lb/day lb/day

2012 3.27 20.63 13.24 0.02

Exhaust PM2.5


Mitigated Construction



PM2.5

NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA

0.00 0.30 0.00 2,153.22

Total NA NA NA NA NA

2.01 0.00 1.72 1.72 0.00 2,147.00

Year lb/day lb/day

2012 3.27 20.63 13.24 0.02 0.97 1.72

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eFugitive PM10


PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

2.0 Emissions Summary

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)

Unmitigated Construction

ROG NOx CO SO2


0.00 1,465.06 0.18 1,468.820.16 1.01 1.17 0.00 1.01 1.01

1,465.06 0.18 1,468.82

Total 1.99 14.01 9.38 0.02

1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 0.00Off-Road 1.99 14.01 9.38 0.02

0.000.16 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00

N2O CO2e


Fugitive Dust

Exhaust PM2.5


Mitigated Construction On-Site



PM2.5

181.71 0.01 181.890.02 0.60 0.00 0.02 0.03Total 0.10 0.62 0.94 0.00 0.56

102.95 0.01 103.080.12 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.01

0.00 0.00 0.00

Worker 0.05 0.06 0.65 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

78.76 0.00 78.810.44 0.02 0.47 0.00 0.02 0.02

N2O CO2e


Hauling 0.05 0.56 0.29 0.00

Exhaust PM2.5


Unmitigated Construction Off-Site



PM2.5

1,465.06 0.18 1,468.821.01 1.41 0.00 1.01 1.01Total 1.99 14.01 9.38 0.02 0.40

1,465.06 0.18 1,468.821.01 1.01 1.01 1.01

0.00

Off-Road 1.99 14.01 9.38 0.02

0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00Fugitive Dust 0.40

NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e



PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive

PM10

3.0 Construction Detail

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction

Water Exposed Area

3.2 Grading - 2012

Unmitigated Construction On-Site


1,712.73 0.29 1,718.731.71 1.71 1.71 1.71Total 3.18 19.60 12.18 0.02

0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1,712.73 0.29 1,718.73

Paving 0.00

1.71 1.71 1.71 1.71Off-Road 3.18 19.60 12.18 0.02

CH4 N2O CO2e


Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2

3.4 Paving - 2012



Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total

0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CH4 N2O CO2e


Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5


Mitigated Construction Off-Site



0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CH4 N2O CO2e


Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5


3.3 Trenching - 2012




181.71 0.01 181.890.56 0.02 0.60 0.00 0.02 0.03

102.95 0.01 103.08

Total 0.10 0.62 0.94 0.00

0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.01Worker 0.05 0.06 0.65 0.00 0.12

0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

78.76 0.00 78.81

Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.02 0.47 0.00 0.02 0.02Hauling 0.05 0.56 0.29 0.00 0.44

CH4 N2O CO2e


Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5






2,147.00 0.29 2,153.181.36 1.36 1.36 1.36

2,147.00 0.29 2,153.18

Total 3.27 20.63 12.17 0.02

1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36Off-Road 3.27 20.63 12.17 0.02

CH4 N2O CO2e


Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5


3.5 Building Construction - 2012




167.29 0.01 167.510.20 0.01 0.21 0.00 0.01 0.01

167.29 0.01 167.51

Total 0.09 0.09 1.06 0.00

0.01 0.21 0.00 0.01 0.01Worker 0.09 0.09 1.06 0.00 0.20

0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CH4 N2O CO2e


Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5





0.00 1,712.73 0.29 1,718.731.71 1.71 1.71 1.71

0.00

Total 3.18 19.60 12.18 0.02

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Paving 0.00

0.00 1,712.73 0.29 1,718.731.71 1.71 1.71 1.71

N2O CO2e


Off-Road 3.18 19.60 12.18 0.02

Exhaust PM2.5





PM2.5

167.29 0.01 167.510.01 0.21 0.00 0.01 0.01Total 0.09 0.09 1.06 0.00 0.20

167.29 0.01 167.510.20 0.01 0.21 0.00 0.01 0.01

0.00 0.00 0.00

Worker 0.09 0.09 1.06 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

N2O CO2e


Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Exhaust PM2.5





PM2.5


281.19 0.05 282.180.29 0.29 0.29 0.29Total 2.84 3.16 1.96 0.00

281.19 0.05 282.180.29 0.29 0.29 0.29

0.00

Off-Road 0.52 3.16 1.96 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Archit. Coating 2.32

CH4 N2O CO2e


Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5


3.6 Architectural Coating - 2012




0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CH4 N2O CO2e


Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5





0.00 2,147.00 0.29 2,153.181.36 1.36 1.36 1.36

2,147.00 0.29 2,153.18

Total 3.27 20.63 12.17 0.02

1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 0.00Off-Road 3.27 20.63 12.17 0.02

CH4 N2O CO2e


Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5





0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CH4 N2O CO2e


Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5






NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA

0.00 0.00 0.00

Total NA NA NA NA

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Unmitigated 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

N2O CO2e


Mitigated 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive

PM10Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive

PM2.5

4.0 Mobile Detail

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CH4 N2O CO2e


Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5





0.00 281.19 0.05 282.180.29 0.29 0.29 0.29

281.19 0.05 282.18

Total 2.84 3.16 1.96 0.00

0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.00Off-Road 0.52 3.16 1.96 0.00

0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

N2O CO2e


Archit. Coating 2.32

Exhaust PM2.5





PM2.5

0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

N2O CO2e


Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Exhaust PM2.5





PM2.5


0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00User Defined Commercial 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00City Park 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Land Use kBTU lb/day lb/day

PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas

Unmitigated

NaturalGas Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10


0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total NA NA NA NA

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

N2O CO2e


NaturalGas Mitigated 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Exhaust PM2.5



PM2.5

0.00

5.0 Energy Detail

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy

User Defined Commercial 8.90 13.30 7.40 0.00 0.00

H-O or C-NWCity Park 8.90 13.30 7.40 33.00 48.00 19.00

4.3 Trip Type Information

Miles Trip %Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C

Total 0.00 0.00 0.00User Defined Commercial 0.00 0.00 0.00

Annual VMTCity Park 0.00 0.00 0.00

4.2 Trip Summary Information

Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated MitigatedLand Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT


0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Total 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00

Landscaping 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Consumer Products 0.03

0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

N2O CO2e

SubCategory lb/day lb/day

Architectural Coating 0.01

Exhaust PM2.5


Unmitigated



PM2.5

NA NA NA NA NA

6.2 Area by SubCategory


0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

Unmitigated 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Mitigated 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00




PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5


PM10

6.0 Area Detail

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00User Defined Commercial 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00City Park 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


Land Use kBTU lb/day lb/day



Mitigated


Exhaust PM10


8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

9.0 Vegetation

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

8.0 Waste Detail

0.00 0.00 0.00

7.0 Water Detail

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Total 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00

Landscaping 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Consumer Products 0.03

0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

N2O CO2e

SubCategory lb/day lb/day


Exhaust PM2.5


Mitigated



PM2.5


Appendix B Greenhouse Gas Emissions CalEEMod Modeling Data

Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation -

Off-road Equipment - equipment provided by applicantGrading - Vehicle Trips - Existing use, no new trips generatedEnergy Use - New field lights would utilize 9,375 KW/h per yearWater And Wastewater - Existing use, no new water usage.Solid Waste - Existing use, no new solid waste generation

Project Characteristics - Land Use - Project is Athletic Field Lighting and a 1,500-sf one-story restroom and storage facilityConstruction Phase - Construction Schedule provided by DistirctOff-road Equipment - Equipment provided by applicantOff-road Equipment - Equipment provided by applicantOff-road Equipment - Equipment provided by applicant

Climate Zone 9 2.2Precipitation Freq (Days)

1.3 User Entered Comments 31

User Defined Commercial 1500 User Defined Unit

1.2 Other Project CharacteristicsUtility Company Glendale Water & Power

Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s)

1.1 Land Usage

Land Uses Size MetricCity Park 1 Acre

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2011.1.1 Date: 4/16/2012

100027457 Hoover HS Field Light ProjectSouth Coast AQMD Air District, Annual

1.0 Project Characteristics

01 Hoover HS Field Light Project (OUTPUT Annual).xls 1 of 12

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Total 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Water

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Waste

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mobile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

N2O CO2e

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Area 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

Exhaust PM2.5


Unmitigated Operational



PM2.5

41.48 41.48 0.01 0.00 41.59

2.2 Overall Operational

0.03 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00Total 0.08 0.44 0.28 0.00 0.01

0.00 41.48 41.48 0.01 0.00 41.590.01 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03

N2O CO2e

Year tons/yr MT/yr

2012 0.08 0.44 0.28 0.00

Exhaust PM2.5


Mitigated Construction



PM2.5

41.48 41.48 0.01 0.00 41.590.03 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00

41.48 0.01 0.00 41.59

Total 0.08 0.44 0.28 0.00 0.01

0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 41.48

Year tons/yr MT/yr

2012 0.08 0.44 0.28 0.00 0.01 0.03

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eFugitive PM10


PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

2.0 Emissions Summary

2.1 Overall Construction

Unmitigated Construction

ROG NOx CO SO2


1.59 1.59 0.00 0.00 1.590.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Total 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.88 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.880.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Worker 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.71 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.710.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

N2O CO2e


Hauling 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00

Exhaust PM2.5





PM2.5

13.29 13.29 0.00 0.00 13.320.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00Total 0.02 0.14 0.09 0.00 0.00

0.00 13.29 13.29 0.00 0.00 13.320.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Off-Road 0.02 0.14 0.09 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Fugitive Dust 0.00




PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5


PM10

3.0 Construction Detail

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction

Water Exposed Area

3.2 Grading - 2012


0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Total 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Water

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Waste

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mobile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

N2O CO2e


Area 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

Exhaust PM2.5


Mitigated Operational



PM2.5


0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CH4 N2O CO2e


Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5





0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CH4 N2O CO2e


Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5


3.3 Trenching - 2012




0.00 1.59 1.59 0.00 0.00 1.590.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.88 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.88

Total 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Worker 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.71 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.71

Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

CH4 N2O CO2e


Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5





0.00 13.29 13.29 0.00 0.00 13.320.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01

13.29 13.29 0.00 0.00 13.32

Total 0.02 0.14 0.09 0.00

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00Off-Road 0.02 0.14 0.09 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

N2O CO2e


Fugitive Dust

Exhaust PM2.5





PM2.5


0.00 0.36 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.360.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.36 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.36

Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CH4 N2O CO2e


Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5





0.00 3.88 3.88 0.00 0.00 3.900.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Paving 0.00

0.00 3.88 3.88 0.00 0.00 3.900.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

N2O CO2e


Off-Road 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.00

Exhaust PM2.5





PM2.5

0.36 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.360.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.36 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.360.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

N2O CO2e


Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Exhaust PM2.5





PM2.5

3.88 3.88 0.00 0.00 3.900.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Total 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.88 3.88 0.00 0.00 3.90

Paving 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Off-Road 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.00

CH4 N2O CO2e


Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5


3.4 Paving - 2012





0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CH4 N2O CO2e


Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5





0.00 20.45 20.45 0.00 0.00 20.500.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

20.45 20.45 0.00 0.00 20.50

Total 0.03 0.22 0.13 0.00

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00Off-Road 0.03 0.22 0.13 0.00

CH4 N2O CO2e


Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5





0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CH4 N2O CO2e


Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5





0.00 20.45 20.45 0.00 0.00 20.500.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

20.45 20.45 0.00 0.00 20.50

Total 0.03 0.22 0.13 0.00

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00Off-Road 0.03 0.22 0.13 0.00

CH4 N2O CO2e


Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5


3.5 Building Construction - 2012





0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CH4 N2O CO2e


Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5





0.00 1.91 1.91 0.00 0.00 1.920.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1.91 1.91 0.00 0.00 1.92

Total 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Off-Road 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

N2O CO2e


Archit. Coating 0.02

Exhaust PM2.5





PM2.5

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

N2O CO2e


Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Exhaust PM2.5





PM2.5

1.91 1.91 0.00 0.00 1.920.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Total 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.00

0.00 1.91 1.91 0.00 0.00 1.920.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Off-Road 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Archit. Coating 0.02

CH4 N2O CO2e


Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5


3.6 Architectural Coating - 2012






0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total NA NA NA NA

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

NaturalGas Mitigated 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Electricity Unmitigated

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

N2O CO2e


Electricity Mitigated

Exhaust PM2.5



PM2.5

0.00

5.0 Energy Detail

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy

User Defined Commercial 8.90 13.30 7.40 0.00 0.00

H-O or C-NWCity Park 8.90 13.30 7.40 33.00 48.00 19.00

4.3 Trip Type Information

Miles Trip %Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C

Total 0.00 0.00 0.00User Defined Commercial 0.00 0.00 0.00

Annual VMTCity Park 0.00 0.00 0.00

4.2 Trip Summary Information

Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated MitigatedLand Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT


0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total NA NA NA NA

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Unmitigated 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

N2O CO2e


Mitigated 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Exhaust PM2.5



PM2.5

4.0 Mobile Detail

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile


0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

User Defined Commercial 0

City Park 0


Land Use kWh tons/yr MT/yr

Electricity Use ROG NOx CO SO2

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mitigated

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


City Park 0

N2O CO2e

Land Use kWh tons/yr MT/yr

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity

Unmitigated

Electricity Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00User Defined Commercial 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00City Park 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


Land Use kBTU tons/yr MT/yr



Mitigated


Exhaust PM10

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00User Defined Commercial 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00City Park 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


Land Use kBTU tons/yr MT/yr



5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas

Unmitigated


Exhaust PM10


0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Total 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Landscaping 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Consumer Products 0.01

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

N2O CO2e

SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr


Exhaust PM2.5


Mitigated



PM2.5

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Total 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Landscaping 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Consumer Products 0.01

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

N2O CO2e

SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr


Exhaust PM2.5


Unmitigated



PM2.5

NA NA NA NA NA

6.2 Area by SubCategory


0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Unmitigated 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Mitigated 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00




PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area


6.0 Area Detail


NA

0.00 0.00

Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

0.00 0.00 0.00

Unmitigated 0.00 0.00

Mitigated 0.00

CH4 N2O CO2e

tons/yr MT/yr

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

Category/Year

ROG NOx CO SO2 Total CO2

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

8.0 Waste Detail

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

User Defined Commercial 0 / 0

City Park 0 / 0


Land Use Mgal tons/yr MT/yr

Indoor/Outdoor Use ROG NOx CO SO2

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mitigated

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

User Defined Commercial 0 / 0

City Park 0 / 0

CH4 N2O CO2e

Land Use Mgal tons/yr MT/yr

NA

7.2 Water by Land Use

Unmitigated

Indoor/Outdoor Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Total CO2

0.00 0.00

Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

0.00 0.00 0.00

Unmitigated 0.00 0.00

Mitigated 0.00



7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

ROG NOx CO SO2

7.0 Water Detail


0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

9.0 Vegetation

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


City Park 0


Land Use tons tons/yr MT/yr

Waste Disposed ROG NOx CO SO2

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mitigated

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


City Park 0

CH4 N2O CO2e

Land Use tons tons/yr MT/yr

8.2 Waste by Land Use

Unmitigated

Waste Disposed ROG NOx CO SO2 Total CO2


Operational Emissions

Conversion to CO2e Units based on GWPProject: Hoover High School - Stadium Lighting: Photometrics CH4 21Project Number: 100027457 N2O 310

CO2 1

Indirect Emissions from Electricity Use Total Project Annual KWh: 9,237 kWH/year (provided by project sponsor)Project Annual MWh (Uele): 9.24 MWH/year

Emission Factors for Electricity Use:CO2 641.26 lbs/MWh/yearCH4 0.029 lbs/MWh/yearN2O 0.011 lbs/MWh/year

Annual Emissions from Electricity Use:Total Emissions Total CO2e Units

CO2 emissions: 2.68678 metric tons 2.687 metric tons CO2eCH4 emissions: 0.00012 metric tons 0.003 metric tons CO2eN2O emissions: 0.00005 metric tons 0.014 metric tons CO2e

Project Total 2.704 metric tons CO 2 e

Notes:Emissions (metric tons/year) =

Emissions in CO 2 e = Emissions (metric tons/year) * GWP

(annual project electrical usage in MWH/year * Emission Factor in lbs/MWH/year)conversion factor from lbs to metric tons (2204.62 lbs/metric ton)

Hoover High School - Stadium Lighting: PhotometricsGreenhouse Gas Emission Worksheet

Electrical Emissions

Documents

HOOVER HIGH SCHOOL PRACTICE FIELD LIGHTING PROJECT Initial Study/Negative Declaration