NEW MURRAY MIDDLE SCHOOLssusd.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_116651/File... · SoCAB South Coast Air Basin SO X sulfur oxides SQMP stormwater quality management plan SRA source receptor

July 2015 | Initial Study

NEW MURRAY MIDDLE SCHOOL Sierra Sands Unified School District

Prepared for:

Sierra Sands Unified School District Contact: Pamela Pence, Program Manager

113 West Felspar Avenue Ridgecrest, California 93555

760.499.5300

Prepared by:

PlaceWorks Contact: Barbara Heyman, Associate Principal

3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100 Santa Ana, California 92707

714.966.9220 [email protected] www.placeworks.com

N E W M U R R A Y M I D D L E S C H O O L I N I T I A L S T U D Y S I E R R A S A N D S U N I F I E D S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

Table of Contents

July 2015 Page i

Section Page

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ..................................................................................................... 2 1.3 SIERRA SANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ................................................................... 19 1.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................. 19 1.5 EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN ....................................................................... 36 1.6 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS ...................................................................................................... 37

2. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST .................................................................................. 39

2.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 39 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED .......................................... 41 2.3 DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY) ........................ 41 2.4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ............................................................... 42

3. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ..................................................................................... 51

3.1 AESTHETICS .................................................................................................................................... 51 3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES .................................................................. 52 3.3 AIR QUALITY ................................................................................................................................... 54 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ......................................................................................................... 62 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................. 66 3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ................................................................................................................ 71 3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ............................................................................................. 80 3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ....................................................................... 83 3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .................................................................................. 94 3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING ................................................................................................... 101 3.11 MINERAL RESOURCES .............................................................................................................. 103 3.12 NOISE ................................................................................................................................................ 104 3.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING ............................................................................................... 117 3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES ........................................................................................................................ 118 3.15 RECREATION ................................................................................................................................ 120 3.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC ................................................................................................ 120 3.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ..................................................................................... 132 3.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ................................................................. 135

4. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 137

5. LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................................ 141

LEAD AGENCY ............................................................................................................................................ 141 PLACEWORKS .............................................................................................................................................. 141


Table of Contents

Page ii PlaceWorks

APPENDICES

Appendix A.1 Record of Categorical Exclusion for Lease of New School Site

Appendix A.2 Record of Categorical Exclusion for the Demolition of Murray Middle School

Appendix B Environmental Condition of Property Report

Appendix C.1 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis

Appendix C.2 Health Risk Assessment Technical Memorandum

Appendix D Biological Technical Report

Appendix E.1 Historic Resource Assessment

Appendix E.2 Cultural Resources Records Search

Appendix E.3 Paleontological Records Search

Appendix F.1 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation and Geologic/Seismic Hazards Evaluation

Appendix F.2 Fault Rupture Hazard Investigation Report

Appendix F.3 Amendment to Geotechnical Engineering Investigation and Geologic/Seismic Hazards Evaluation

Appendix F.4 Update, Geotechnical Engineering Investigation

Appendix G.1 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment

Appendix G.2 Preliminary Environmental Assessment Report, New Murray Middle School

Appendix G.3 Remedial Action Workplan

Appendix H Hydrology Study

Appendix I Noise Analysis

Appendix J Traffic Impact Analysis


Table of Contents

July 2015 Page iii

List of Figures

Figure Page

Figure 1 Regional Location ................................................................................................................................. 3

Figure 2 Local Vicinity ......................................................................................................................................... 5

Figure 3 Legal Description Map ......................................................................................................................... 7

Figure 4 Aerial Photograph, New Campus ...................................................................................................... 9

Figure 5 Site Map, Existing Campus ............................................................................................................... 11

Figure 6 Site Photographs, Existing Campus ................................................................................................. 13

Figure 7 Site Photographs, New Campus ....................................................................................................... 15

Figure 8 Historical Photograph, New Campus .............................................................................................. 17

Figure 9 Aerial Photograph, Existing Campus .............................................................................................. 21

Figure 10 Surrounding Uses, New Campus ..................................................................................................... 23

Figure 11 Site Plan, New Campus ...................................................................................................................... 25

Figure 12 Soil Removal and Reburial Areas ..................................................................................................... 29

Figure 13 Demolition, Existing Campus ........................................................................................................... 33

Figure 14 Geologic Map ...................................................................................................................................... 73

Figure 15 Area Fault Map .................................................................................................................................... 75

Figure 16 Earthquake Location Map ................................................................................................................. 77

Figure 17 Proposed Hydrology Map ................................................................................................................. 99

Figure 18 Existing Circulation Network and Lane Configurations ............................................................ 125


Table of Contents

Page iv PlaceWorks

List of Tables

Table Page

Table 1 Proposed School Buildings Specifications ...................................................................................... 20

Table 2 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions ....................................................................................... 56

Table 3 Annual Construction Emissions ....................................................................................................... 57

Table 4 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions, Mitigated .................................................................... 58

Table 5 Maximum Daily Operation Emissions ............................................................................................ 59

Table 6 Annual Operation Emissions ............................................................................................................ 59

Table 7 Net Project-Related GHG Emissions ............................................................................................. 82

Table 8 Organochlorine Pesticide Concentrations Identified .................................................................... 89

Table 9 Existing Runoff, 100-Year Storm ..................................................................................................... 96

Table 10 Estimated Runoff, Proposed Conditions, 100-Year Storm ......................................................... 96

Table 11 Proposed Retention Basins ............................................................................................................... 97

Table 12 Existing Conditions Traffic Noise Levels (New School Site) ................................................... 105

Table 13 Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure by Land Use1.................................................................. 107

Table 14 Project Offsite Contributions, Existing Conditions .................................................................... 109

Table 15 Overall Project Offsite Contributions ........................................................................................... 110

Table 16 Vibration Levels Produced by Common Construction Equipment ......................................... 113

Table 17 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Level............................................................................. 115

Table 18 Study Area Intersections Traffic Controls and Jurisdictions ..................................................... 122

Table 19 Relationship Between Delay Values and Levels of Service ........................................................ 123

Table 20 Existing Conditions Intersection Levels of Service .................................................................... 123

Table 21 Cumulative Projects .......................................................................................................................... 127

Table 22 Intersection Levels of Service, 2017 Without-Project Conditions............................................ 127

Table 23 Project-Generated Traffic ................................................................................................................ 128

Table 24 Intersection Levels of Service, Existing plus Project Conditions ............................................. 129

Table 25 Intersection Levels of Service, 2017 plus Project Conditions ................................................... 129


Abbreviations and Acronyms

July 2015 Page v

AAQS ambient air quality standards

AB Assembly Bill

ACM asbestos-containing materials

ADT average daily traffic

amsl above mean sea level

AQMP air quality management plan

AST aboveground storage tank

BAU business as usual

bgs below ground surface

BMP best management practices

CAA Clean Air Act

CAFE corporate average fuel economy

CalARP California Accidental Release Prevention Program

CalEMA California Emergency Management Agency

Cal/EPA California Environmental Protection Agency

CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection

CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code

Cal/OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration

CalRecycle California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery

Caltrans California Department of Transportation

CARB California Air Resources Board

CBC California Building Code

CCAA California Clean Air Act

CCR California Code of Regulations

CDE California Department of Education

CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

cfs cubic feet per second

CGS California Geologic Survey

CMP congestion management program

CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database

CNEL community noise equivalent level



Page vi PlaceWorks

CO carbon monoxide

CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent

Corps US Army Corps of Engineers

CSO combined sewer overflows

CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency

CWA Clean Water Act

dB decibel

dBA A-weighted decibel

DPM diesel particulate matter

DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control

EIR environmental impact report

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FTA Federal Transit Administration

GHG greenhouse gases

GWP global warming potential

HCM Highway Capacity Manual

HQTA high quality transit area

HVAC heating, ventilating, and air conditioning system

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Ldn day-night noise level

Leq equivalent continuous noise level

LBP lead-based paint

LCFS low-carbon fuel standard

LOS level of service

LST localized significance thresholds

MW moment magnitude

MCL maximum contaminant level

MEP maximum extent practicable

mgd million gallons per day

MMT million metric tons



July 2015 Page vii

MPO metropolitan planning organization

MT metric ton

MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California

NAHC Native American Heritage Commission

NOX nitrogen oxides

NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System

O3 ozone

OES California Office of Emergency Services

PM particulate matter

POTW publicly owned treatment works

ppm parts per million

PPV peak particle velocity

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

REC recognized environmental condition

RMP risk management plan

RMS root mean square

RPS renewable portfolio standard

RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board

SB Senate Bill

SCAG Southern California Association of Governments

SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District

SIP state implementation plan

SLM sound level meter

SoCAB South Coast Air Basin

SOX sulfur oxides

SQMP stormwater quality management plan

SRA source receptor area [or state responsibility area]

SUSMP standard urban stormwater mitigation plan

SWP State Water Project

SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan

SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board

TAC toxic air contaminants

TNM transportation noise model



Page viii PlaceWorks

tpd tons per day

TRI toxic release inventory

TTCP traditional tribal cultural places

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS United States Geological Survey

UST underground storage tank

UWMP urban water management plan

V/C volume-to-capacity ratio

VdB velocity decibels

VHFHSZ very high fire hazard severity zone

VMT vehicle miles traveled

VOC volatile organic compound

WQMP water quality management plan

WSA water supply assessment

July 2015 Page 1

1. Introduction

Sierra Sands Unified School District (SSUSD or District) is evaluating the potential environmental

consequences associated with the New Murray Middle School project. The District proposes to relocate the

existing Murray Middle School program from 921 East Inyokern Road to a 47-acre site at the northwest

corner of Drummond Avenue and Knox Road, near the City of Ridgecrest on property owned by the United

States Department of Defense (DOD). The project includes acquiring the new school site via a 25-year,

renewable lease from the DOD, constructing and operating the new campus, and demolishing the existing

school.

Because the proposed project would be on federal land owned by DOD and would be state and federally

funded, it is required to undergo environmental review pursuant to both the California Environmental

Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA requirements have been

satisfied; DOD has prepared and approved two Categorical Exclusions for the project (see Appendices A.1

and A.2).

This document satisfies the requirements of CEQA. This initial study has been prepared to determine

whether an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or a Negative Declaration is required. If the Initial Study

concludes that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, an EIR must be prepared.

Otherwise, a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is prepared. The information in

this Initial Study supports the conclusion for preparation of a MND.

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION

The proposed project encompasses two project sites that are slightly over one mile apart in the Naval Air

Weapons Station (NAWS) China Lake, North Range, adjacent to the City of Ridgecrest in Kern County,

California.

The existing Murray Middle School site is at 921 East Inyokern Road. The school is on the south side of

East Inyokern Road between North Lauristen Road and North Richmond Road, within the secured

premises of China Lake. Access to the site is via the main gate at the intersection of China Lake

Boulevard and Inyokern Road. The site is approximately one mile east of North China Lake Boulevard

(US 395 Business Route).

The proposed new Murray Middle School site is at 200 E. Drummond Avenue, on the northwest corner

of Drummond Avenue and Knox Road. Drummond Avenue abuts the southern property line, while

Knox Road abuts the eastern property line. The northern property line generally aligns with Burroughs

Avenue and/or the northern boundary of Burroughs High School located at 500 East French Avenue.

The site is approximately one-quarter mile east of North China Lake Boulevard.


1. Introduction

Page 2 PlaceWorks

The City of Ridgecrest is in the Western Mojave Desert region of California, approximately 150 miles

northeast of Los Angeles. Figure 1, Regional Location, and Figure 2, Local Vicinity, illustrate the location of the

project sites in their regional and local contexts. Figure 3, Legal Description Map, demonstrates the dimensions

of the new school site, and Figure 4, Aerial Photograph, New Campus, is an aerial view of the proposed school

site.

1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

1.2.1 Existing Land Use

1.2.1.1 EXISTING CAMPUS

The existing Murray Middle School was originally built in 1945, although some buildings on the campus are

newer. Enrollment was 590 during the 2013–2014 school year (CDE 2015). Over half the students are

dependents of people working on base. The campus consists of several buildings surrounding a central quad:

three permanent classroom buildings, three portable classrooms, an administration building, a cafeteria, and a

music building. Two other permanent buildings, the gymnasium and locker room building, are south and

southeast, respectively, of the buildings clustered around the quad. Numerous portable buildings south of the

main complex of buildings, plus two warehouse buildings in the southeast part of the campus, house the

District transportation department, temporary bus yard, garage, food services offices, and warehouses. There

are hardcourts to the west and east of the main complex of buildings, and a track and field in the northeast

part of the campus. Vehicular access is from Inyokern Road along the north campus boundary, and the

school’s parking lot is in the north-central part of campus. The parent drop-off lane is alongside Inyokern

Road on the north campus boundary.

Community use of the campus is limited due to the location of the campus inside the base and thus subject

to limited access. The school day extends from 7:25 AM to 2:20 PM, consisting of seven periods about 55

minutes each. The school year is consistent with that of the District’s traditional calendar year, which typically

begins near Labor Day and ends in June the following year. Figure 5, Site Map, Existing Campus, demonstrates

the layout of the existing facilities. Figure 6, Site Photographs, Existing Campus, depicts the condition of the

existing school site.

1.2.1.2 NEW CAMPUS

The proposed new school site is vacant and consists of disturbed desert habitat. Remnants of a former

housing development (e.g., abandoned underground utilities, including gas, water, sewer, and storm drains)

are present on the northern portion of the site, and concrete pads and footers that once supported an

electrical substation are near the southeast corner of the site. The residences were built between 1959 and

1961 and were demolished in 2002 (see Appendix B, “Environmental Condition of Property Report”). Figure

7, Site Photographs, New Campus, depicts the existing condition of the new school site. Figure 8, Historical

Photograph, New Campus, shows the condition of the project area prior to the demolition of the naval homes.


1. Introduction

July 2015 Page 3

Figure 1 Regional Location


1. Introduction

Page 4 PlaceWorks

This page intentionally left blank.


1. Introduction

July 2015 Page 5

Figure 2 Local Vicinity


1. Introduction

Page 6 PlaceWorks



1. Introduction

July 2015 Page 7

Figure 3 Legal Description Map


1. Introduction

Page 8 PlaceWorks



1. Introduction

July 2015 Page 9

Figure 4 Aerial Photograph, New Campus


1. Introduction

Page 10 PlaceWorks



1. Introduction

July 2015 Page 11

Figure 5 Site Map, Existing Campus


1. Introduction

Page 12 PlaceWorks



1. Introduction

July 2015 Page 13

Figure 6 Site Photographs, Existing Campus


1. Introduction

Page 14 PlaceWorks



1. Introduction

July 2015 Page 15

Figure 7 Site Photographs, New Campus


1. Introduction

Page 16 PlaceWorks



1. Introduction

July 2015 Page 17

Figure 8 Historical Photograph, New Campus


1. Introduction

Page 18 PlaceWorks



1. Introduction

July 2015 Page 19

1.2.2 Surrounding Land Use

1.2.2.1 EXISTING CAMPUS

The existing campus is surrounded to the east, south, and west by vacant land; land to the south and west was

formerly developed as single-family housing. To the north of the campus, opposite Inyokern Road, are a

training facility used by China Lake and Bennington Plaza—the main commercial center on the base—which

includes a commissary, post office, barber shop, gymnasium, and a theater (Chattel 2012). Figure 9, Aerial

Photograph, Existing Campus, shows the conditions of the existing school.

1.2.2.2 NEW CAMPUS

The surrounding area at the proposed new school site is interspersed vacant land and suburban development.

Burroughs High School is directly east and opposite of Knox Road. Farther east is a solar panel farm on the

naval station. Southeast of the site is currently vacant; however, it is slated for development of a parking lot

as a part of the proposed improvements at Burroughs High School. Leroy Jackson Park Sports Complex (a

Ridgecrest city park) and the rear of a commercial strip mall along China Lake Boulevard are south of the

site. Immediately west and north of the site are vacant, undeveloped areas within the fences of China Lake.

Farther west is another commercial use along China Lake Boulevard, and farther north is Las Flores

Elementary School. Figure 10, Surrounding Uses, New Campus, shows the conditions of the surrounding area.

1.3 SIERRA SANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Sierra Sands Unified School District spans 970 square miles in northeastern Kern and northwestern San

Bernardino counties. The District operates seven elementary schools, two middle schools, one high school,

one continuation high school, and one adult school. Districtwide enrollment in the 2013–2014 school year

was 4,933 (CDE 2015).

1.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed project is the relocation of the existing Murray Middle School program to a new school site.

As a part of the project, the District would lease the new site from DOD and construct a new middle school

campus. Once the new campus is in operation, the existing school would be demolished.

1.4.1 Proposed Land Use

1.4.1.1 LEASE OF NEW SCHOOL SITE

Development of the new Murray Middle School would require leasing a 47-acre site from DOD. Only the

eastern 31 acres (or two-thirds) would be developed, and the western third would remain in its current

undeveloped state. A seven-foot-high chain link fence would be installed around the main campus; the access

driveways and parking lots would not be within the fenced area.


1. Introduction

Page 20 PlaceWorks

1.4.1.2 PROPOSED FACILITIES

School Buildings

As illustrated in Figure 11, Site Plan, New Campus, the proposed school buildings would be built generally in

the northeast quadrant of the new school site. The District proposes construction of four sets of one-story

buildings, with a total building area of 68,243 square feet and heights ranging from 20 to 30 feet. The

buildings would house 28 teaching stations, gymnasium with stage, kitchen/cafeteria (multipurpose room),

administration, music and art, and library. The gymnasium would have one basketball court and pull-out

bleachers for up to 300 spectator seats. The buildings would surround a landscaped courtyard with the

administration and multipurpose/kitchen buildings east of the quad, the gymnasium/locker room and

art/music buildings to the north, and the remaining classroom buildings to the west and south. Table 1,

Proposed School Buildings Specifications, summarizes the proposed improvements.

Table 1 Proposed School Buildings Specifications Building Uses Teaching Stations Area (square feet) Height (feet)

D1 Classrooms, computer classroom, information center, textbook room

41

33,944 SF total buildings D1-D5

20

D2 Science classrooms, science labs, classroom, collaboration room

6 20

D3 Classrooms 5 20

D4 Classrooms 5 20

D5 Classrooms 5 20

A1 Administration 0 14,846 SF total buildings A1-A2

20

A2 Multipurpose Room, Kitchen 0 20

B Gym, locker room 0 19,453 SF total buildings B, C

30

C Music/art (1 choir classroom, 1 band classroom, 1 art classroom)

3 20

Total Not applicable 28 68,243 Not applicable 1 The information center is not counted here as a teaching station.

Outdoor Athletic Facilities

Outdoor athletic facilities would surround the school buildings. Four basketball courts are proposed to the

north of the buildings, a natural turf soccer/football field with a dirt track is proposed to the west, and a dirt

softball field to the southwest.


1. Introduction

July 2015 Page 21

Figure 9 Aerial Photograph, Existing Campus


1. Introduction

Page 22 PlaceWorks



1. Introduction

July 2015 Page 23

Figure 10 Surrounding Uses, New Campus


1. Introduction

Page 24 PlaceWorks



1. Introduction

July 2015 Page 25

Figure 11 Site Plan, New Campus


1. Introduction

Page 26 PlaceWorks



1. Introduction

July 2015 Page 27

Access, Circulation, and Parking

The main vehicular entrance to the campus would be via a one-way loop driveway of approximately 1,300

linear feet in the southern part of the campus. Ingress and egress would be from Drummond Avenue and

separated by approximately 400 feet. Due to the short distance between the two access points, egress would

be restricted to right-turn only, toward China Lake Boulevard. The drop-off lane, lined with trees, would be

along the loop driveway. The school’s main parking lot with 87 stalls is proposed at the southeast corner of

the site; access would be from the loop driveway. A motorized arm gate would separate 8 visitor stalls from

the remaining 79 stalls. Four ADA parking spaces would also be provided at the northeast corner of the

campus; separate access would be from Knox Road. The campus would have a total of 91 off-street parking

spaces. The bus drop-off lane would be a one-way southbound loop on the east side of the campus with

entry and exit from Knox Road. A fire lane would extend behind the campus from the driveway at the

northeast corner, generally continuing behind the northern and western school buildings to the loop driveway

in the southern part of the campus.

Lighting

Only parking and security lighting is proposed throughout the campus; no night time field lighting would be

installed.

1.4.1.3 UTILITIES

Water

A network of water lines would be installed: 2- to 4-inch domestic water lines and 4- and 10-inch fire water

lines. Two water lines, a 4-inch domestic water line and a 10-inch fire water line, would extend to the center

of Drummond Avenue next to the west site boundary. From the ends of these water lines, a 12-inch water

main would be installed in Drummond Avenue and run about 105 feet north to an existing 12-inch water

main in Drummond Avenue.

Sewer

A network of sewer pipes and laterals ranging from four to eight inches in diameter would be installed. An

eight-inch pipe would extend to the northern part of the Burroughs High School campus, where it would

connect to an existing sewer main operated by NAWS China Lake.

Drainage

Project development would include construction of nine storm water retention basins. Basins 1, 2, 4, 5, 6,

and 7 would provide drainage for the main building area and the stadium and softball field. Basin 3 would

provide drainage for vacant land in the western part of the project site. Basins 8 and 9 would provide

drainage for the parking lots and vacant land in the southern part of the site. The proposed retention basins

would infiltrate the estimated runoff from the site into the soil in postproject conditions from a 10-year, 5-

day storm. The retention basins would not have outlets, except for basins 5 and 6, which would have outlets

into Basin 7.


1. Introduction

Page 28 PlaceWorks

1.4.1.4 OPERATION

Similar to the existing program, the new Murray Middle School program would serve grades 6 through 8. The

new campus would provide up to 896 seats, assuming a conservative loading factor of 32 seats per classroom.

The school would employ between 60 and 65 certificated and classified employees.

The project would not change the existing Murray Middle School attendance boundary. Most students would

continue to be bused to school or dropped off. A few would walk, bicycle, or skateboard to school. The

busing program is anticipated to be similar to the one at the existing school. Between seven and eight school

buses would be used for over a third of the student enrollment, which would continue to be bused.

Due to its proximity to Burroughs High School, however, the start time of the new Murray campus would

change to 8:05 AM; the existing Murray program starts at 7:20 AM and ends at 2:20 PM. Burroughs’ start

time would remain at 7:25 AM. Teachers typically arrive 15 minutes prior to school starting and leave 15

minutes after the last bell. The school year would run from August to May, and summer school would be

offered occasionally at the campus, if needed. After-school enrichment and daycare programs would generally

end at 5:00 PM.

The new campus would be available for use by the District and other District schools, such as Burroughs

High School, for staff development, student performances, athletic events, overflow parking, curricular

collaboration, and ceremonial events. When the facilities are not used by the District, they would be available

for use by DOD and the community via the Civic Center Act (Education Code §§ 38130–38139).

1.4.1.5 CONSTRUCTION

In October 2015, or soon after the Board of Education approves the project, the District would commence

soil removal activities in connection with grading activities. Grading would occur generally on the eastern 31

acres of the 47-acre site where the improvements are proposed; the western third would remain in its current

condition. The construction area would be cleared of existing vegetation and all above- and below-ground

structures, including utilities that served the previous residential uses in the northern portion of the proposed

new campus. If site clearing and vegetation removal occurs during bird breeding season, between February 1

and August 31, a preconstruction nesting bird survey would be conducted in compliance with the federal

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 703–712). If active nests are observed during the survey, a no-

construction buffer would be placed around the active nests. The size of the buffer would depend upon the

species present. Construction within the buffer area would resume after a qualified biologist confirms that the

birds are no longer nesting.

Due to previous uses of pesticides (dieldrin and aldrin) on the northern portion of the site (former base

housing), soil remediation would be required in the affected areas. Soil in four general areas has been

identified for removal, as described below and illustrated in Figure 12, Soil Removal and Reburial Areas:

Area A. Soil will be removed from an area of 203,430 square feet (4.7 acres) to depths ranging from 0.5

to 2.5 feet below ground surface (bgs), defined by seven subareas. This portion of the removal action will

generate an estimated 6,982 cubic yards of soil.


1. Introduction

July 2015 Page 29

Figure 12 Soil Removal and Reburial Areas


1. Introduction

Page 30 PlaceWorks



1. Introduction

July 2015 Page 31

Area B. Soil will be removed from an area of 179,160 square feet (4.1 acres) to depths ranging from 0.5

to 3.0 feet bgs, defined by eight subareas. This portion of the removal action will generate an estimated

5,555 cubic yards of soil.

Area C. Soil will be removed from an area of 128,930 square feet (3.0 acres) to depths ranging from 0.5

to 3.0 feet bgs, defined by seven subareas. This portion of the removal action will generate an estimated


Area D. Soil will be removed from an area of 40,351 square feet (0.9 acres) to depths ranging from 0.5 to

3.0 feet bgs, defined by six subareas. This portion of the removal action will generate an estimated 1,620

cubic yards of soil.

The estimated volume of impacted soil that requires removal is 20,077 cubic yards, including a 5 percent

contingency to account for the results of postremoval confirmation soil sampling. Almost all of the removed

soil can be managed as nonhazardous waste, but a very small volume (<10 cubic yards) will require

management as non-RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) hazardous waste.

The District has entered into an agreement with the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to

complete all site investigations and response actions under the oversight of the DTSC. The District has

prepared a Removal Action Workplan with three remedial options:

Alternative 1 (No Action). This alternative is required as a baseline to which all other remedial

alternatives can be compared. This alternative involves taking no action toward a remedy nor active

management to achieve the remediation goal of developing a school on the project site.

Alternative 2 (Soil Excavation and Offsite Disposal). This option involves the excavation and offsite

disposal of soil impacted by pesticides. An estimated 20,077 cubic yards of impacted soil would be

excavated to depths ranging from 0.5 to 3.0 feet bgs. Once the impacted soil is removed, confirmation

soil samples would be collected from the exposed excavation sidewalls and bottoms to confirm that the

site specific cleanup goals have been met and the removal action objectives have been achieved. Because

the site is considered to be balanced with respect to soil import/export, a similar volume of clean soil

(20,077 cubic yards) would need to be imported to compensate for the impacted soil that would be

removed. Exported soil would likely be taken to the Lancaster Landfill and Recycling Center, which is 83

miles southwest of Ridgecrest, and/or the Antelope Valley Public Landfill, which is 95 miles southwest

of Ridgecrest. It is not known at this time where soil would be imported from. Excavation and offsite

disposal would be an effective means of removing impacted soil and would meet the remediation goal.

Alternative 3 (Soil Excavation and Onsite Burial, Capping, and Land Use Covenant). As with

Alternative 2, Alternative 3 involves the excavation and removal of an estimated 20,077 cubic yards of

pesticide-impacted soil. However, rather than disposing of this soil offsite, it would be placed in an

engineered onsite burial cell (Figure 12) and covered by a protective soil cap, in accordance with

engineering design plans approved by the DTSC. Individual soil removal areas would be backfilled

immediately after soil samples confirm that all of the contaminated soil in that area/subarea has been


1. Introduction

Page 32 PlaceWorks

removed (to the burial cell) and DTSC has reviewed the lab data and provided informal approval to

backfill. A small amount of non-RCRA hazardous soil (<10 cubic yards) would be disposed of offsite,

either at the Kettleman or Buttonwillow landfills, approximately 200 and 150 miles west of Ridgecrest,

respectively. The remainder would be loaded into end-dump trucks and transferred to the burial cell.

Once the burial cell has been backfilled to a depth no shallower than two feet below grade, an engineered

cap would be constructed above the buried soil. The cap would consist of a permeable geotextile mat

overlain by a two-foot-thick soil cover of clean soil reserved during excavation of the burial cell. The

cover soil would be applied, compacted, and graded in accordance with the approved design plans to

promote drainage and minimize wind and water erosion. Once completed, the cap would be hydroseeded

with acceptable desert vegetation to establish a vegetated root mat that would minimize erosion and

facilitate evapotranspiration. The cap would be subject to long-term inspections and maintenance to

ensure that it would continue to function as intended. A land use restriction would also be applied to the

burial site, and future development options would be limited.

Alternative 3 is preferred because it is most cost-effective, easily implemented, and protective of future

occupants of the proposed school and the environment. Because it is also the most likely alternative to be

approved by DTSC, this Initial Study only analyzes the impacts associated with Alternative 3.

Although it is anticipated that soil remediation activities would commence shortly after the project is

approved by the Board of Education in fall 2015, construction of the proposed school improvements atop

the areas impacted by contaminated soil cannot commence until DTSC concurs that they have been

appropriately remediated for school development and/or issues a letter of No Further Action for the entire

removal process.

Once approved by DTSC, site grading would be completed, followed by the necessary trenching (for utility

hookups to buildings). The building foundation, buildings, and utilities would then be constructed. Finally, the

area surrounding the buildings would be covered with concrete and asphalt; curb cut-breaks and driveways

would be added; sidewalks located along the perimeter of the proposed new school site would be improved;

and landscaping, site fencing, and any final work would be completed. The new campus would open in fall

2017.

Once the new Murray Middle School is operating, the existing middle school at 921 Inyokern Road would

close. Nonschool uses, including the temporary bus yard, District transportation department, warehouse,

garage, and administrative food services, would remain in operation at the existing site. Although the Navy

has not confirmed whether it will maintain the existing classroom facilities, for the purposes of this initial

study, it is assumed the District would demolish them in the fourth quarter of 2017. The buildings proposed

for demolition are depicted in Figure 13, Demolition, Existing Campus. Demolition of the existing school would

require testing of the building materials for the presence of asbestos-containing material and lead-based

paint. If asbestos or lead is found, the contaminated material would be abated in accordance with all

applicable requirements, including East Kern Air Pollution Control District Rule 423, and the materials would

be properly disposed of. Uncontaminated materials would be recycled, to the extent feasible, and remaining

debris disposed of at an approved landfill.


1. Introduction

July 2015 Page 33

Figure 13 Demolition, Existing Campus


1. Introduction

Page 34 PlaceWorks



1. Introduction

July 2015 Page 35

Construction Best Management Practices

The District requires its construction contractor to comply with all applicable rules and regulations in

carrying out the construction of the proposed project. Project implementation would also comply with the

District’s Construction Best Management Practices (BMP), which are established and refined as part of the

District’s current building efforts.

Construction Traffic. The District requires its contractors to submit a worksite traffic control plan to the

City of Ridgecrest and to the China Lake Police Department for review prior to construction. The plan

would show the location of haul routes, construction hours, protective devices, warning signs, and access to

abutting properties.

Construction Air Emissions. The District requires its construction contractors to comply with all

applicable East Kern Air Pollution Control District (EKAPCD) rules (e.g., Rule 402, Fugitive Dust) and

regulations in carrying out construction activities. To reduce the potential for significant hazardous emissions,

the District or its contractor would:

Maintain slow speeds with all vehicles;

Load impacted soil directly into transportation trucks to minimize soil handling;

During dumping, minimize soil drop height into transportation trucks or stockpiles;

During transport, cover or enclose trucks transporting soils, maintain a freeboard height of at least 12

inches, and repair trucks exhibiting spillage due to leaks;

Place stockpiled soil in areas shielded from prevailing winds;

During active demolition and debris removal, apply water every 4 hours to the area within 100 feet of the

structure being demolished to reduce vehicle trackout;

Use a gravel apron to reduce mud/dirt trackout from unpaved truck exit routes;

During demolition activities, apply water to disturbed soils, both after demolition is completed and at the

end of each day of cleanup;

Prohibit demolition activities when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour;

Implement the following for construction combustion equipment:

Use Tier 2 vehicles or the equivalent alternative fueled or catalyst equipped diesel construction

equipment, where practicable, including all off-road and portable diesel powered equipment.

Ensure that idling time will be minimized by either shutting equipment off when not in use or

reducing the time of idling to 5 minutes as a maximum.


1. Introduction

Page 36 PlaceWorks

Construction Noise. The District requires the construction contractor to keep properly functioning

mufflers on all internal combustion and vehicle engines used in construction. The District requires its

construction contractor to provide advance notice of the start of construction to include all noise sensitive

receptors, businesses, and residences adjacent to the new school site and specifically when and where

construction activities will occur and provide contact information for filing noise complaints. During

construction activities, the construction contractor will, to the extent feasible, locate portable equipment and

shall store and maintain equipment away from the adjacent residents; will require all mobile or stationary

internal combustion engine powered equipment or machinery be equipped with exhaust and air intake

silencers in proper working order; and will require all construction equipment be properly maintained with

operating mufflers and air intake silencers as effective as those originally installed by the manufacturer. The

District requires its construction contractors to comply with all applicable noise ordinances of the affected

jurisdiction(s) and when necessary to comply with all applicable noise ordinances.

Cultural Resources. If a cultural resource (i.e., historic or prehistoric artifact, fossilized shell, or bone) is

discovered during ground-disturbing activities, the District requires that the construction contractor stop all

work within the immediate area and notify the District, and that the find be evaluated by a qualified

archaeologist and/or paleontologist. If the find is determined to be potentially significant, the archaeologist,

in consultation with the District and DOD, shall develop a treatment plan. All work in the immediate vicinity

of the unanticipated discovery shall cease until the qualified archaeologist and/or paleontologist has evaluated

the discovery or the treatment plan has been implemented.

Hazardous Materials Management. The District requires its construction contractor to remediate

hazardous materials at the new school site under supervision of the District. The potential hazards at the

existing campus are generally limited to asbestos-containing materials; lead-based paint; fluorescent light

tubes and ballasts; and lab chemicals, paints, and solvents. The District will also ensure that all remediation for

the proposed New Murray Middle School project is performed pursuant to the Remedial Action Workplan,

and with the oversight of DTSC.

1.5 EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN

The Commanding Officer of NAWS China Lake has authority for all land use decisions on the facility. The

facility land use plan is the Comprehensive Land Use Management Plan issued in 2005. The existing school

and proposed school sites are in the North Range of China Lake. The new school site is in the Mainsite Land

Management Unit, which has the station headquarters, principal laboratories, and most of the administrative

and support functions of China Lake; it is the largest developed area at the station. The sites are in an area

designated as a buffer zone between offbase parts of the City of Ridgecrest and mission-related parts of

China Lake (Fox 2012).


1. Introduction

July 2015 Page 37

1.6 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS

1.6.1 Lead Agency

Sierra Sands Unified School District is the lead agency under CEQA for the proposed project. As part of the

project approval process, the District Board of Education must adopt the MND (including this Initial Study)

as adequate in complying with the requirements of CEQA before taking any action on the proposed project.

The board is required to consider the information in the MND while making a decision to approve or deny

the proposed project. In accordance with CEQA requirements, the analysis in the MND provides

environmental review for the whole of the proposed project, including the planning, construction, and

ongoing operation.

1.6.2 Responsible Agencies

A public agency other than the lead agency that has discretionary approval power over a project is a

responsible agency, according CEQA Guidelines. The responsible agencies and their corresponding approvals

for the proposed project include:

United States Department of Navy (authority for all land use decisions on the facility, including approval

of lease agreement and Facilities Alteration Request)

Department of Toxic Substances Control (letter of No Further Action)

Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System

Permit; issuance of waste discharge requirement; construction of stormwater runoff permits)

City of Ridgecrest Public Works (approval of offsite improvements permits, such as grading and drainage

plans; permits for curb cuts for driveways; and various street and signage improvements, if required).

City of Ridgecrest Police Department (approval of police services)

Kern County Fire Department (approval of the fire access and safety plan)

1.6.3 Reviewing Agencies

Reviewing agencies do not have discretionary powers to approve or deny the proposed project or actions

needed to implement it, but may review the Initial Study for adequacy and accuracy. Potential reviewing

agencies include:

Bureau of Land Management

California Department of Education

Department of Transportation (Caltrans)

Department of Fish and Game


1. Introduction

Page 38 PlaceWorks

Division of the State Architect

Native American Heritage Commission

City of Ridgecrest Planning and Public Services Department

Office of Historic Preservation

East Kern Air Pollution Control District

July 2015 Page 39

2. Environmental Checklist

2.1 BACKGROUND

1. Project Title: New Murray Middle School

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Sierra Sands Unified School District 113 Feldspar Ridgecrest, CA 93555

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Pamela Pence, Program Manager 760.499.5300

4. Project Location: The project would be carried out on two sites: the existing Murray Middle School campus at 921 East Inyokern Road and the new school site proposed at the northwest corner of Drummond Avenue and Knox Avenue on the Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, near the City of Ridgecrest in northeastern Kern County.

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Sierra Sands Unified School District 113 Feldspar Ridgecrest, CA 93555

6. General Plan Designation: The Department of the Navy regulates station land use. The Commanding Office has authority for all land use decisions on the facility. The Comprehensive Land Use Management Plan identifies the new school site in the Mainsite Land Management Unit, which is an area designated as a buffer zone between off-base parts of the City of Ridgecrest and mission-related parts of China Lake (Fox 2012).

7. Zoning: The site is within the jurisdiction of China Lake; see General Plan Designation above.

8. Description of Project: The project involves the lease of a 47-acre site for relocation of the existing Murray Middle School program. The new campus would include classroom buildings with a total of 28 teaching stations, a gymnasium, an administration building, and a multipurpose/kitchen building; a track and field; a baseball field; and outdoor basketball courts. The school would have a capacity of 896 seats. The existing Murray Middle School campus would be demolished after the opening of the new school.



Page 40 PlaceWorks

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Burroughs High School is across Knox Road, directly east of the new campus site. Southeast of the site is vacant; however, development of a parking lot has been approved as a part of the improvements at Burroughs High School. Leroy Jackson Park Sports Complex (a city park) and the rear of a commercial strip mall off China Lake Boulevard are south of the site. Immediately west and north of the site are vacant, undeveloped areas within the fenced area of China Lake.

10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required:

United States Department of Navy

Department of Toxic Substances Control

Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board

City of Ridgecrest Public Works

City of Ridgecrest Police Department

Kern County Fire Department



July 2015 Page 41

2.2 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 Agricultural and Forest 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

2.3 DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY)

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 “potentially

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.

Signature Date

Printed Name For



Page 42 PlaceWorks

2.4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



July 2015 Page 43

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

9) The explanation of each issue should identify:

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

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

Issues

Potentially Significant

Impact

Less Than Significant

With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

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

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

X

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

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

II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are

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

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

X

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

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

X

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

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

X



Page 44 PlaceWorks

Issues


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

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

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

quality plan? X

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

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

X

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X

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

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

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

X

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

X

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

X

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

X

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

X

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

X

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

historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? X

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

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



July 2015 Page 45

Issues


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

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

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse

effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

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

X

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X

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

iv) Landslides? X

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

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

X

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

X

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

X

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

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

X

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

X

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

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

X

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

X

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

X

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

X



Page 46 PlaceWorks

Issues


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

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

X

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

X

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

X

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

X

i) Does the proposed school site contain one or more pipelines, situated underground or aboveground, which carry hazardous substances, acutely hazardous materials or hazardous wastes, unless the pipeline is a natural gas line that is used only to supply natural gas to that school or neighborhood?

X

j) Does the project site contain a current or former hazardous waste disposal site or solid waste disposal site and, if so, have the wastes been removed?

X

k) Is the project site a hazardous substance release site identified by the state Department of Health Services in a current list adopted pursuant to § 25356 for removal or remedial action pursuant to Chapter 6.8 of Division of the Health and Safety Code?

X

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

requirements? X

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

X

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

X

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

X

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

X



July 2015 Page 47

Issues


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

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

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

X

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

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

X

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

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

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

X

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

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

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

X

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

X

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

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

X

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

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

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

X

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

X

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

X



Page 48 PlaceWorks

Issues


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

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

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

X

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

X

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

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

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

a) Fire protection? X b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Parks? X e) Other public facilities? X

XV. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood

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

X

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

X

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

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

X

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

X

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

X

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

X



July 2015 Page 49

Issues


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

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

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

X

g) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X

XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed waste water treatment requirements of the applicable

Regional Water Quality Control Board? X

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

X

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

X

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

X

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

X

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

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

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

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

X

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

X

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

X



Page 50 PlaceWorks


July 2015 Page 51

3. Environmental Analysis

3.1 AESTHETICS

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

No Impact. A scenic vista is considered an area that is visually or aesthetically pleasing, providing scenic

quality and view access. The City of Ridgecrest General Plan mentions scenic resources visible from the

city—four mountain ranges bounding the Indian Wells Valley and desert landscapes (Matrix 2008). The

proposed new school site is flat. Proposed buildings would be similar in height to the existing buildings at

Burroughs High School east of the site and the commercial uses west and northwest of the site. Project

implementation would not affect scenic vistas in the area, and the new structures would not obstruct

designated scenic views.

Demolition of the existing campus would have no adverse impact on scenic vistas visible from surrounding

roadways and land uses. No impact to a scenic vista would occur, and no mitigation measures are necessary.

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings,

and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Ridgecrest General Plan specifies several scenic corridors in the

City, including West Inyokern Road, North and South China Lake Boulevard, East and West Ridgecrest

Boulevard, West Bowman Road, College Heights Boulevard, West Drummond Avenue and Jacks Ranch

Road. The proposed new school site is not along any of the identified scenic corridors, the nearest of which

is North China Lake Boulevard 500 feet west of the site. There are no designated state scenic highways in the

project region (Caltrans 2011). The sites do not contain any historic buildings (see Section 5.5) or rock

outcroppings. There are no trees on the new school site. The proposed project would install and maintain

new landscaping that would enhance the visual quality to the site.

The existing campus was evaluated for historic significance by Chattel Architecture, Planning & Preservation

in 2012 (Appendix E.1) and found not to be eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic

Resources; thus, there are no historical buildings on the existing campus. There are trees on the campus, but

they are ornamental landscape trees characteristic of urban areas in the Mojave Desert and are not significant

scenic resources. Project development would not damage a scenic resource within a state scenic highway, and

impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

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

Less Than Significant Impact. The visual character of the new school site is related to the quality of

streetscape, building(s), or other man-made or natural features, that define the area. The proposed new school

site is vacant and vegetated with desert scrub vegetation dominated by saltbush (Atriplex confertifolia). Several



Page 52 PlaceWorks

roadways in poor condition remain onsite from previous residential development. Development of the

proposed middle school would change the visual character of the site. However, the visual character of the

proposed middle school would fit with the appearance of the nearby school and commercial uses, and the

project would not substantially degrade the visual character of the site or surroundings.

The existing campus is surrounded to the west, east, and south by vacant land; thus, demolition of the

campus and vacation of the site would not substantially degrade the visual character of the site compared to

surrounding land. Visual impacts are not significant, and no mitigation measures are required.

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime

views in the area?

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not add significant new sources of light or

glare and would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area of the proposed new school site.

Sources of illumination as part of the proposed project would include security lighting, internal classroom

lighting, vehicle lights, and parking lot lights. Lighting would be installed in a manner to minimize glare for

pedestrians and drivers, and minimize spillover light. In addition, the District would apply design standards

that would reduce impacts that would adversely affect day or nighttime views, such as window shades and

glare shields. Finally, new lamp enclosures and poles would be painted or would have a natural color finish to

reduce reflection. The exterior finish of the proposed buildings would not include any highly reflective

surfaces, aside from standard glass windows.

Demolition of the existing campus would remove sources of light and glare from that site. Therefore, the

potential impact on daytime or nighttime views would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are

required.

3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES

In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies

may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the

California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and

farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant

environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of

Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range

Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology

provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),

as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of

the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

No Impact. The proposed project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of

Statewide Importance to nonagricultural uses. The proposed new school site is mapped as Vacant or

Disturbed Land on the California Important Farmland Finder maintained by the Division of Land Resource



July 2015 Page 53

Protection (DLRP 2015). No agricultural uses exist in the project area. According to the Farmland Mapping

and Monitoring Program, the sites and surrounding area contain no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or

Farmland of Statewide Importance (DLRP 2015).

The existing campus site is mapped as Urban and Built-Up Land on the Farmland Finder (DLRP 2015);

demolition of the existing campus would have no impact on mapped farmland. No farmland impacts would

occur, and no mitigation measures are necessary.

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

No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with agricultural zoning or a Williamson Act contract.

Although the new school site is on federal land, the City of Ridgecrest has designated the site as Urban

Reserve (UR), which is a designation held for land in reserve for future urban expansion. Limited animal

keeping is permitted in the UR district but crops and orchards are not permitted; thus, the UR zone is not

considered an agricultural zone. The site is surrounded to the south by RSP (Recreational/School/Public

Use) zoning, to the west by General Commercial (GC) zoning, and to the east by Burroughs High School,

which is also on UR zoning. There is no agricultural use onsite. The existing campus site is also in the Urban

Reserve zoning district.

Williamson Act contracts restrict the use of privately owned land to agriculture and compatible open-space

uses under contract with local governments; in exchange, the land is taxed based on actual use rather than

potential market value. There are no Williamson Act contracts in effect on the sites of the new middle school

or the existing middle school (DLRP 2013).

Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with an existing agricultural use or with a Williamson Act

contract, and no impact would occur. No mitigation measures are necessary.

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public

Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code

Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code

Section 51104(g))?

No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning or cause rezoning of forest land,

timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. The zoning designation on the sites of the new and

existing middle schools is Urban Reserve. Both sites are in the Mainsite Land Management Unit, the largest

developed area at China Lake. The site does not contain forestland, and the zoning does not allow for

timberland production. No impacts would occur, and no mitigation measures are required.

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

No Impact. Project development would not cause the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to

nonforest use. The proposed new school site is disturbed land with desert scrub vegetation. The surrounding

areas are largely urban in character and are not forested. In addition, the sites’ zoning designation is Urban

Reserve, which does not permit forestry use. No forest land is present on the existing campus, and demolition



Page 54 PlaceWorks

of the existing campus would not cause a loss of forest land. No forestry impacts would occur, and no

mitigation measures are required.

e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could

result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-

forest use?

No Impact. Project implementation would not result in the conversion of farmland or forest land to

nonagricultural or nonforest uses. There are no forested areas or designated farmland near the proposed new

school site that may be affected by project implementation. There is no farmland near the existing campus,

and demolition of the existing campus would not cause conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of farmland or forest land. No impact would

occur, and no mitigation measures are required.

3.3 AIR QUALITY

The Air Quality section addresses the impacts of the proposed project on ambient air quality and the

exposure of people, especially sensitive individuals, to unhealthful pollutant concentrations. A background

discussion on the air quality regulatory setting, meteorological conditions, existing ambient air quality in the

vicinity of the new school site, and air quality modeling can be found in Appendix C.1. A health risk

assessment (HRA) that evaluates the potential impacts of toxic air emissions on the proposed project is

provided in Appendix C.2.

The primary air pollutants of concern for which ambient air quality standards (AAQS) have been established

are ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM10), fine inhalable particulate

matter (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxides (NO2), and lead (Pb). Areas are classified under the

federal and California Clean Air Act as in either attainment or nonattainment for each criteria pollutant based

on whether the AAQS have been achieved. The project sites are in eastern Kern County in the Mojave Desert

Air Basin (MDAB), which is managed by the Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District (EKAPCD). The

MDAB is currently designated a “moderate” nonattainment area for California and National O3 AAQS and

nonattainment under the California PM10 AAQS.

Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution

control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:

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

Less Than Significant Impact. EKAPCD is responsible for preparing the air quality management plan

(AQMP) for the eastern Kern County portion of the MDAB in coordination with the Kern County Council

of Governments (KCOG). In 2003, EKAPCD prepared the “Ozone Attainment Demonstration,

Maintenance Plan, and Redesignation Request for the Eastern Kern County Federal Planning Area.”

EKAPCD prepares its AQMP in coordination with the KCOG. Because the AQMP takes into account

growth within eastern Kern County based on regional projections from KCOG, only large projects that



July 2015 Page 55

exceed regional employment, population, and housing planning projections have the potential to be

inconsistent with the regional inventory compiled as part of EKAPCD’s AQMPs.

The proposed project involves construction of the new Murray Middle School campus and demolition of

several buildings at the existing campus. The project is not considered a regionally significant project that

would significantly affect regional vehicle miles traveled and warrant Intergovernmental Review by the

KCOG pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines § 15206). The project also would not have the

potential to substantially affect housing, employment, and population projections within the region, which

form the basis for the AQMP projections. Furthermore, the net increase in regional emissions for which the

MDAB is in nonattainment generated by the proposed project would be less than the EKAPCD’s emissions

thresholds (see Section 3.3(b), below). These thresholds are established to identify projects that have the

potential to generate a substantial amount of criteria air pollutants. Because the proposed project would not

exceed these thresholds, it would not be considered by the EKAPCD to be a substantial emitter of criteria air

pollutants. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of

EKAPCD’s AQMP. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.

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

violation?

Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The following describes project-related

impacts from short-term construction activities and long-term operation of the proposed project.

Short-Term Air Quality Impacts

Construction activities would result in the generation of air pollutants. These emissions would primarily be 1)

exhaust emissions from off-road diesel-powered construction equipment; 2) dust generated by grading,

earthmoving, and other construction activities; 3) exhaust emissions from on-road vehicles and 4) off-gas

emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from application of asphalt, paints, and coatings.

Construction activities would occur on approximately 31.17 acres of the new 47-acre campus, and demolition

would occur on 2.51 acres of the existing 29.4-acre campus. Construction at the new campus would involve

site preparation; soil remediation; asphalt demolition; grading; utility trenching; construction of the classroom

buildings, administration building, multipurpose/kitchen building, gym/locker room, and music/art building;

installation of the proposed fields; asphalt paving; and architectural coating. Demolition at the existing

campus would take place after the completion of construction at the new campus and would involve several

buildings and the courtyard. Construction activities would start as early as fall 2015 and would take

approximately two years. Construction emissions were estimated with the California Emissions Estimator

Model (CalEEMod), version 2013.2.2, based on the project’s preliminary construction schedule, phasing, and

equipment list provided by the District. The construction schedule and equipment mix are based on

preliminary engineering and are subject to changes during final design and as dictated by field conditions.

Eastern Kern County is currently designated “moderate” nonattainment under California and National O3

AAQS and nonattainment under the California PM10 AAQS. EKAPCD Rule 402, Fugitive Dust, requires

fugitive dust control measures—such as improve road surface, control vehicular traffic speed, and apply dust



Page 56 PlaceWorks

suppressants—to reduce the amount of suspended particulate matter emitted from fugitive dust sources

(EKAPCD 2011). By complying with EKAPCD Rule 402, not only would the regional and localized

concentration of PM10 and PM2.5 be reduced, the potential risk of exposing sensitive receptors and onsite

workers to valley fever would also be minimized. Criteria air pollutants from construction activities are

compared to the EKAPCD’s significance thresholds in Table 2, Maximum Daily Construction Emissions, and

Table 3, Annual Construction Emissions.

Table 2 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions

Source

Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/day)1

VOC NOx SO2 PM10 Total2 PM2.5 Total2

Year 2015

Site Preparation/Soil Remediation + Soil Remediation Haul

14 139 <1 16 10

New School Asphalt Demolition + Asphalt Demo Debris Haul

3 31 <1 3 1

Fine Grading & Utility Trenching 1 8 <1 3 2

Year 2016


Asphalt Paving 1 8 <1 1 1

Building Construction 2 15 <1 1 1

Year 2017


Building Construction & Architectural Coating 23 16 <1 1 1

Architectural Coating 20 2 <1 <1 <1

Finishing/Landscaping 1 3 <1 <1 <1

Existing School Demolition + Building Demo Debris Haul + Asphalt Demo Debris Haul

4 35 <1 5 2

Maximum Daily Emissions 23 139 <1 16 10

EKAPCD Threshold 137 137 N/A N/A N/A

Exceeds Threshold No Yes N/A N/A N/A

Source: CalEEMod Version 2013.2.2. Notes: lbs = pounds; N/A = not applicable; bold = exceeds threshold. 1 Construction phasing is based on the preliminary information and equipment list provided by the District. Where specific information regarding project-related

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

2 PM10 and PM2.5 fugitive dust emissions assume application of EKAPCD Rule 402, which includes watering disturbed areas a minimum of two times per day, reducing speed limit to 15 miles per hour on unpaved surfaces, replacing ground cover quickly, and street sweeping.



July 2015 Page 57

Table 3 Annual Construction Emissions

Source

Annual Emissions (tons/year)1


2015 <1 3 <1 <1 <1

2016 <1 1 <1 <1 <1

2017 1 1 <1 <1 <1

EKAPCD Threshold 25 TPY 25 TPY 27 TPY 15 TPY N/A

Exceeds Threshold No No No No N/A

Source: CalEEMod Version 2013.2.2. Notes: TPY = tons per year; N/A = not applicable. 1 Construction phasing is based on the preliminary information and equipment list provided by the District. Where specific information regarding project-related



As shown in Table 3, criteria air pollutant emissions from construction activities would not exceed the

EKAPCD annual thresholds. Additionally, as shown in Table 2, VOC emissions from construction activities

would not exceed the EKAPCD daily VOC threshold. However, NOx emissions during phases that include

soil remediation hauls (rough grading soil haul activity) would exceed the EKAPCD daily NOx threshold.

Therefore, the worst-case, project-related construction activities would have the potential to expose sensitive

receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations without incorporation of mitigation measures.

Table 4, Maximum Daily Construction Emissions, Mitigated, shows the emissions that would be generated with

implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1. This measure requires using construction equipment with Tier

3 engines for site preparation and soil remediation activities. As shown in the table, NOx emissions would be

reduced to below the EKAPCD daily threshold. Therefore, with incorporation of mitigation, project-related

construction activities impacts would be less than significant.



Page 58 PlaceWorks

Table 4 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions, Mitigated

Source

Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/day)1, 3


Year 2015

Site Preparation/Soil Remediation + Soil Remediation Haul

5 54 <1 12 7

New School Asphalt Demolition + Asphalt Demo Debris Haul

3 31 <1 3 1


Year 2016


Asphalt Paving 1 8 <1 1 1


Year 2017


Building Construction & Architectural Coating 23 16 <1 1 1

Architectural Coating 20 2 <1 <1 <1

Finishing/Landscaping 1 3 <1 <1 <1

Existing School Demolition + Building Demo Debris Haul + Asphalt Demo Debris Haul

4 35 <1 5 2

Maximum Daily Emissions 23 54 <1 12 7


Exceeds Threshold No No N/A N/A N/A

Source: CalEEMod Version 2013.2.2. Notes: lbs = pounds; N/A = not applicable. 1 Construction phasing is based on the preliminary information and equipment list provided by the District. Where specific information regarding project-related



3 Includes implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, which requires using construction equipment with Tier 3 engines for site preparation and soil remediation activities.

Long-Term Operation-Related Air Quality Impact

Long-term air pollutant emissions by the project would be generated by area sources (e.g., landscape fuel use,

aerosols, and architectural coatings), energy use associated with the proposed buildings, and the project-

related vehicle trips. Criteria air pollutant emissions were modeled using CalEEMod. Criteria air pollutants are

compared to the EKAPCD’s significance thresholds in Table 5, Maximum Daily Operation Emissions, and in

Table 6, Annual Operation Emissions. As shown in Table 5 and Table 6, criteria air pollutant emissions from

operation activities would not exceed the EKAPCD daily and annual thresholds.



July 2015 Page 59

Table 5 Maximum Daily Operation Emissions

Source

Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/Day)

VOC NOx SO2 PM10 Total PM2.5 Total

Existing

Area 4 <1 <1 <1 <1

Energy <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Mobile Sources 4 2 <1 3 1

Total Emissions 8 3 <1 3 1

Proposed Project

Area 3 <1 <1 <1 <1

Energy <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Mobile Sources 6 3 <1 4 1

Total Emissions 8 3 <1 4 1

Net Change

Area -1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Energy -0.028 -0.257 -0.002 -0.020 -0.020

Mobile Sources 2 1 <1 1 <1

Total Emissions 1 1 <1 1 <1


Exceeds Threshold No No N/A N/A N/A

Source: CalEEMod Version 2013.2.2. Notes: lbs = pounds; N/A = not applicable. Highest winter or summer emissions are reported. Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding.

Table 6 Annual Operation Emissions

Source

Annual Emissions (Tons/Year)

VOC NOx SO2 PM10 Total PM2.5 Total

Existing

Area 1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Energy <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Mobile Sources <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Total Emissions 1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Proposed Project

Area <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Energy <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Mobile Sources 1 <1 <1 1 <1

Total Emissions 1 <1 <1 1 <1

Net Change

Area -0.235 <1 <1 <1 <1

Energy -0.005 -0.047 <1 -0.004 -0.004

Mobile Sources <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Total Emissions -0.026 <1 <1 <1 <1

EKAPCD Threshold 25 TPY 25 TPY 27 TPY 15 TPY N/A

Exceeds Threshold No No No No N/A

Source: CalEEMod Version 2013.2.2. Notes: TPY = tons per year; N/A = not applicable. Highest winter or summer emissions are reported. Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding.



Page 60 PlaceWorks

Mitigation Measure

AQ-1 The Sierra Sands Unified School District (District) shall specify in the construction bid that

the construction contractor(s) shall use equipment that meets the United States

Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Certified Tier 3 off-road emissions standards for

off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower. Any emissions

control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than

what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized

engine, as defined by California Air Resources Board regulations. Prior to construction, the

project engineer shall ensure that all construction management and grading plans clearly

show compliance with USEPA Tier 3 or higher emissions standards for construction

equipment over 50 horsepower. During construction, the construction contractor shall

maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the project site for verification by the

Building and Safety Division Official or designee. The construction equipment list shall state

the makes, models, and numbers of construction equipment onsite. Equipment shall be

properly serviced and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations.

Construction contractors shall also ensure that all nonessential idling of construction

equipment is restricted to five minutes or less in compliance with California Air Resources

Board’s Rule 2449.

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 which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

Less Than Significant Impact. The eastern Kern County portion of the MDAB is currently designated a

“moderate” nonattainment area under California and National O3 AAQS and nonattainment under the

California PM10 AAQS (CARB 2014a). Any project that does not exceed or can be mitigated to less than the

EKAPCD significance levels, used as the threshold for determining major projects, does not add significantly

to a cumulative impact (EKAPCD 1996). With mitigation, construction emissions would not exceed

EKAPCD’s significant thresholds. Operational emissions would also not exceed EKAPCD’s significance

thresholds. Consequently, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution

to ozone or particulate matter concentrations in the MDAB. Project emissions would have a less than

significant impact on cumulative emissions, and no mitigation measures are required.

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project could expose sensitive receptors to elevated pollutant

concentrations if it would cause or contribute significantly to elevated pollutant concentration levels.

Localized concentrations refer to the amount of pollutant in a volume of air (ppm or µg/m3) and can be

correlated to potential health effects to sensitive populations. Emissions that do not exceed the daily or

annual EKAPCD emissions thresholds are considered to result in less than significant localized impacts. As

identified above in Section 3.3(b), with mitigation, the project would not result in regional emissions in excess



July 2015 Page 61

of the EKAPCD’s significance threshold values. Therefore, localized air quality impacts from the project

would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.

Carbon Monoxide Hotspots

Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of CO called hotspots. These pockets have

the potential to exceed the state one-hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm. Under

existing and future vehicle emission rates, a project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single

intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour—or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or

horizontal air does not mix—in order to generate a significant CO impact (BAAQMD 2011). The proposed

project would generate 766 average daily vehicle trips during a weekday, 267 trips during the morning peak

hour, and 89 trips during the evening peak hour (see Section 3.16, Transportation/Traffic), which is significantly

less than the volumes cited above. In addition, the potential for CO hotspots to be generated in the MDAB is

extremely low because of the improvements in vehicle emission rates and control efficiencies. The MDAB is

designated in attainment for CO under both the California AAQS and National AAQS. Typical projects

would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and analysis of CO hotspots is

not warranted. Therefore, impacts are less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.

Health Risk Assessment

Recent air pollution studies have shown an association between proximity to major air pollution sources and a

variety of health effects, which are attributed to a high concentration of air pollutants. Guidance from the

California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the California Air Pollutant Control Officer’s Association

recommends the evaluation of various emission sources within 1,000 feet of sensitive land uses (i.e.,

residences, schools, daycare centers, and hospitals). An HRA was prepared for the construction of the New

Murray Middle School, as required by Public Resources Code Section 21151.8 and Education Code Section

17213 (see Appendix C-2).

Properties within a quarter-mile radius (1,320 feet) were surveyed to identify facilities that have the potential

to generate hazardous and acutely hazardous air emissions. In addition, the EKAPCD and the Kern County

Agricultural Commissioner’s Office were contacted to assist in the identification of potential emitters. The

EKAPCD identified no permitted stationary sources, mobile sources, or nonpermitted sources within the

quarter-mile radius of the new school site. The Kern County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office did not

identify any agricultural fields or pesticide usage within a quarter-mile radius of the proposed school site.

Additionally, a data search using the California Pesticide Information Portal (CalPIP) reported no pesticide

use in 2010 (most recent year available). Based on the findings of the HRA, no stationary or mobile sources

within a quarter-mile radius of the school site would result in hazardous air emissions that could impact

students and staff at the new Murray Middle School. Therefore, health risk impacts are considered less than

significant, and no mitigation measures are required.



Page 62 PlaceWorks

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

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not result in objectionable odors. The

threshold for odor is if a project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to EKAPCD Rule 419, Nuisance, which

states:

A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air

contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any

considerable number of persons or to the public or which endanger the comfort, repose,

health or safety of any such persons or the public or which cause or have a natural tendency

to cause injury or damage to business or property.

The type of facilities that are considered to have objectionable odors include wastewater treatments plants,

compost facilities, landfills, solid waste transfer stations, fiberglass manufacturing facilities, paint/coating

operations (e.g., auto body shops), dairy farms, petroleum refineries, asphalt batch plants, chemical

manufacturing, and food manufacturing facilities. The uses proposed by the project do not fall within the

aforementioned land uses. Emissions from construction equipment, such as diesel exhaust and VOCs from

architectural coatings and paving activities, may generate odors. However, these odors would be low in

concentration, temporary, and are not expected to affect a substantial number of people. No significant

impacts would occur, and no mitigation measures are required.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

The information and analysis in this section are based in part on the Biological Resources Technical Report

for the Sierra Sands Unified School District, Murray Middle School, Alden Environmental, Inc., August 6,

2013. A complete copy of this report is included as Appendix D to this Initial Study.

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

identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or

regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. No sensitive animal or plant species were

observed on the proposed new school site during a general biological survey of the site on March 27, 2013,

and a focused rare plant survey on April 25, 2013. No sensitive vegetation communities were identified onsite

during either of these surveys. The site has been disturbed by past residential development. One vegetation

community, disturbed white bursage scrub, and two other land cover types (disturbed habitats and developed

areas) were identified onsite. Vegetation in the disturbed white bursage scrub is sparse, showing evidence of

past residential development. Plants other than the dominant white bursage, Ambrosia dumosa, are scattered

creosote bush (Larrea tridentata) and brittlebush (Encelia farinosa). Disturbed habitat consists of dirt roads and

bare, unvegetated, previously developed areas. Developed areas include paved roads and a defunct power

transmission facility. No sensitive plant or animal species are expected to occur onsite. The new school would

disturb an approximately 47-acre site, but the project would not disturb habitat where sensitive species are

expected.



July 2015 Page 63

Burrowing Owl

One burrowing owl, Athene cunicularia, was observed in the southwest corner of the site during field work for

the Categorical Exclusion under NEPA in November–December 2011. Burrowing owl is listed as a California

Species of Special Concern by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW),1 but is not listed

under the federal or state endangered species acts. Subsequent field work found no evidence of owl

occupation onsite.

Nesting burrowing owls and other nesting migratory birds are protected under the federal Migratory Bird

Treaty Act (MBTA). If site clearing occurs outside the avian breeding season (February 1 through September

1), then no impacts to MBTA-protected species would occur, and no mitigation would be required. However,

this impact would be potentially significant if vegetation clearance was conducted during the bird breeding

season, February 1 to September 1. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce this

potentially significant impact to less than significant.

Desert Tortoise

The NEPA Categorical Exclusion concluded that the habitat onsite could support the desert tortoise

(Gopherus agassizii), and consequently, it has the potential to occur onsite. Desert tortoise is listed as threatened

under both the federal and state endangered species acts. Tortoises were not identified onsite during field

work for the Categorical Exclusion or the biological technical report, which does not anticipate them onsite.

Nonetheless, project development could impact desert tortoise, and this impact is potentially significant.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would reduce this impact to less than significant.

Mitigation Measures

BIO-1 If site clearing occurs during the bird breeding season, February 1 to September 1, a

preconstruction survey shall be conducted three days prior to clearing or grading activities to

determine if breeding or nesting avian species are in the impact area. If no nesting birds (or

birds displaying breeding or nesting behavior) are present, then clearing may proceed. If

nesting birds are present, a noconstruction buffer will be placed around the active nest(s).

The size of the buffer will depend on the species present and will be determined in

conjunction with the Naval Air Weapons Station, China Lake Environmental Management

Division. Construction in these areas shall not be resumed until the biologist has confirmed

that the birds are no longer nesting.

BIO-2 Prior to construction, a desert tortoise protection education program shall be presented to

all construction personnel to ensure that they are aware of the significance to the project

should this species occur onsite during construction. The education program will include:

The legal and sensitive status of the tortoise.

1 California Species of Special Concern are vertebrate animal species native to California that are listed under the federal endangered species act but not the state endangered species act; or could become qualified for listing under the state endangered species act due to small populations or to serious, noncyclical declines in population or range (CDFW 2013).



Page 64 PlaceWorks

A brief discussion of tortoise life history and ecology.

Mitigation measures designed to reduce adverse effects to tortoises.

Protocols to follow, if a tortoise is encountered, including appropriate contact point(s).

A final site clearance survey shall be conducted within 7 days of the start of construction to

confirm that no tortoises are onsite. As identified in the NEPA Categorical Exclusion, the

clearance survey will be conducted by a USFWS-approved biologist in accordance with the

current US Fish and Wildlife Service desert tortoise protocol. If a tortoise is found in the

project area, activities should be modified to avoid injuring or harming it. If activities cannot

be modified, then construction will be postponed until a desert tortoise relocation procedure

can be implemented, in conjunction with the Navy’s Environmental Management Division

and the USFWS.

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community

identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish

and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

No Impact. Sensitive natural communities are communities that are considered rare in the region by

regulatory agencies; known to provide habitat for sensitive animal or plant species; or known to be important

wildlife corridors. Riparian habitats occur along the banks of rivers and streams. No sensitive natural

community or riparian habitat was observed onsite, and no impact would occur. No mitigation measures are

required.

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the

Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct

removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

No Impact. Wetlands are defined under the federal Clean Water Act as land that is flooded or saturated by

surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and that normally does

support, a prevalence of vegetation adapted to life in saturated soils. Wetlands include areas such as swamps,

marshes, and bogs. No potential jurisdictional areas were identified onsite, including wetlands jurisdictional to

the US Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to the Clean Water Act. No impact would occur, and no

mitigation measures are needed.

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife

species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of

native wildlife nursery sites?

Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. A majority of the site is surrounded by

developed land uses. There are no regional or local wildlife corridors onsite. However, as stated above, project

implementation would remove vegetation that could support nesting migratory birds protected under the

federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce this impact to

less than significant. No additional mitigation measures are required.



July 2015 Page 65

Mitigation Measure

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

preservation policy or ordinance?

No Impact. The project site is on federal land, and no local policies are applicable to the site. The Biological

Resources Technical Report prepared for the project site was conducted in compliance with state and federal

requirements, and as appropriate, applicable regulatory requirements have been applied to the project as a

part of the project description or as mitigation (i.e., Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2). Therefore, no

impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required.

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community

Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project sites are within the plan area of

one regional conservation plan that has been adopted by the US Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and a

second regional conservation plan is under preparation.

West Mojave Plan

The West Mojave Plan (WMP), adopted by BLM in 2006, covers 9.3 million acres of the western portion of

the Mojave Desert in California, including parts of Inyo, Los Angeles, Kern, San Bernardino, and Riverside

counties. The WMP is an interagency habitat conservation plan (HCP) that was prepared by the BLM in

collaboration with federal and state agencies, and NAWS China Lake is a participating agency.

The purpose of the WMP is to conserve and protect the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) and nearly 100

other sensitive plant and wildlife species, as well as the habitats on which these species depend, and provide

developers of public and private projects with a streamlined program for compliance with FESA and CESA

by reducing delays and expenses, eliminating uncertainty, and applying the costs of compensation and

mitigation equitably to all agencies and parties. The WMP allows incidental take of covered species and is

consistent with the resource management plans adopted by each of the region’s five military bases as well as

with the Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan. The term of the WMP is 30 years.

In 2009 the US District Court for Northern California issued a summary judgment requiring a lower court to

take further action on the off-highway vehicle route designations in the WMP. New route designations must

be made by September 2015 (Alden Environmental 2013; BLM 2015).

Land use and resource conservation policies at the new and existing school sites are established by the

commanding officer of China Lake. After implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2, project

development would not have substantial impacts on sensitive resources protected under the WMP or

otherwise conflict with the WMP.



Page 66 PlaceWorks

Draft Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan

The draft Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) covers 22.5 million acres of federal and

nonfederal lands in the California deserts and adjacent lands in Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles, Riverside,

San Bernardino, and San Diego counties. It is a collaboration between state (e.g., California Energy

Commission, CDFW) and federal (e.g., BLM, USFWS) agencies, with input from local governments,

environmental organizations, industry, and other interested parties to provide effective protection,

conservation, and management of desert ecosystems while allowing for appropriate development and timely

permitting of renewable energy projects. Portions of China Lake, including the project sites, are in the

DRECP area.

The draft DRECP and associated environmental impact report/environmental impact statement (EIR/EIS)

were recently circulated for public review (CEC 2015). If approved, the DRECP would result in an efficient

and effective biological mitigation and conservation program, providing renewable energy project developers

with binding, long-term endangered species permit assurances and facilitating the review and approval of

renewable energy and associated infrastructure, such as electric transmission lines necessary for renewable

energy development within the Mojave and Colorado desert regions of California (Alden Environmental

2013).

The new school site is leased by the Sierra Sands Unified School District as a prospective school site. No

renewable energy projects are proposed onsite, and the project would not conflict with the DRECP. No

impact would occur.

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES

The information and analysis in this section is based in part on the following technical studies:

Murray Middle School Historic Resource Assessment, Chattel Architecture, Planning & Preservation, April 11,

2012. A complete copy of this report is included as Appendix E.1 to this Initial Study.

Record of Categorical Exclusion for the Lease of 32 Acres to Sierra Sands Unified School District for Construction of a

New Middle School, Department of the Navy: Commanding Officer, Naval Air Weapons Station, China

Lake, August 6, 2012. A complete copy of this report is included as Appendix A.1.

Record of Categorical Exclusion for the Demolition of Murray Middle School, Department of the Navy:

Commanding Officer, Naval Air Weapons Station, China Lake, September 12, 2012. A complete copy of

this report is included as Appendix A.2.

Cultural Resources Records Search, South San Joaquin Valley Information Center, December 20, 2013. A

complete copy of this report is included as Appendix E.2.

Paleontological Records Search for the Proposed Burroughs High School and Murray Middle School Project, in the City of

Ridgecrest, Kern County, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, February 26, 2014. A complete

copy of this report is included as Appendix E.3.



July 2015 Page 67

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

§ 15064.5?

Less Than Significant Impact. Section 15064.5 defines historic resources as resources listed or determined

to be eligible for listing by the State Historical Resources Commission, a local register of historical resources,

or the lead agency. Generally a resource is considered “historically significant” if it meets one of the

following criteria:

i) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of

California’s history and cultural heritage;

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

iii) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction,

or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values;

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

Existing School

Description

Buildings of the existing campus are one story and designed in modest International style, characterized by

flat roofs with wide overhanging eaves, no ornamentation, and large banks of wood sash windows that span

almost the full length of northern elevations. Four buildings were built in 1945: the administration building

and three classroom buildings. Later additions to the campus—the auditorium, music, and gymnasium

buildings—are clearly distinguished from 1945 campus buildings and generally have low-sloped gable roofs

and clerestory windows. The administration building, three classroom buildings, auditorium, and music

building are arranged around a courtyard at the center of campus.

Timeline

The existing Murray Middle School campus, originally Burroughs High School, was built in 1945. A high

school was built off-station in Ridgecrest in 1959 so that off-station residents would not need a pass. That

off-base school is now Mesquite Continuation High School. Burroughs High School is the only traditional

comprehensive high school operated by the District. Burroughs High School is at 500 East French Avenue

opposite Knox Road east of the site for the proposed new middle school and is outside the current China

Lake security perimeter. Murray Middle School has operated at its current site since 1960.

Assessment

The existing Murray Middle School campus was part of an effort by the Navy to establish community

facilities on and near the station during 1944 to 1946 so that scientists and their families could move to

Ridgecrest for work at China Lake, known at that time as Naval Ordinance Test Station Inyokern. Murray

Middle School therefore qualifies for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) under

Criterion 1.



Page 68 PlaceWorks

The existing campus is not associated with the lives of persons important in our past, and thus does not

qualify for CRHR listing under Criterion 2. Burroughs High School is not directly associated with Captain

Sherman Burroughs, the station’s first commanding officer.

The original campus was designed by prominent Los Angeles architect Henry Gogerty in an International

Style and is significant under Criterion 3. The school campus exemplifies elements of the style: emphasis on

horizontality, lack of ornamentation, interplay between wall and roof planes, and relationship between

interior and exterior spaces.

Murray Middle School does not appear likely to yield information important in prehistory or history and

therefore does not meet Criterion 4.

Once a resource has been determined to satisfy at least one National Register criteria, it must be assessed for

“integrity.” Integrity refers to the ability of a property to convey its significance, and the degree to which the

property retains the identity, including physical and visual attributes, for which it is significant under the four

basic criteria. The National Register recognizes seven aspects or qualities of integrity: location, design, setting,

materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. To retain its historic integrity, a property must possess

several, and usually most, of these aspects.

The integrity of design, materials, and workmanship of the current structures have been greatly

compromised by the replacement of banks of windows on east elevations with blank wall surfaces. These

windows were a character-defining feature of the International style and an important design element of

campus buildings. In addition, the existing school appears to have lost its integrity of setting through

construction of several additions to the administration building, construction of the music building between

two classroom buildings, and loss of landscaping. Additions to the administration building had a substantial

impact on the campus entrance, closing off the northern entrance to the central courtyard and diminishing

the prominence of the northern entrance to the administration building. Furthermore, construction of the

music building interrupted the relationship of Classroom buildings 2 and 3 with each other and with the

central courtyard. Integrity of setting was further compromised through the loss of landscaping in the central

courtyard. Historical photographs and aerials show the courtyard with a lawn and multiple trees. The

courtyard is now only soil, with one tree planted in a concrete planter in the center of each quadrant. Without

the housing immediately south of the school, Murray Middle School loses part of its setting as a school in the

center of residential area.

The existing Murray Middle School campus has potential significance under criteria 1 and 3, but lacks

sufficient integrity for eligibility. Since it is not eligible for listing in the California Register, it is not a historical

resource under CEQA. Therefore, demolition of the existing Murray Middle School campus would not

damage a historical resource.

New Campus Site

The proposed new school site is vacant, and there are no historic buildings onsite. Several roadways in poor

condition remain in the northern half of the site from residential development built between 1953 and 1973

and demolished between 1995 and 2004, as shown on historical topographic maps and aerial photographs



July 2015 Page 69

(USGS 1953; USGS 1973; Google Earth 2015). No cultural artifacts were identified in a foot survey of the

site conducted by archaeologists in late 2011 (DOD 2012). No cultural resources within the new school site

were identified in a cultural resources records search by the South San Joaquin Valley Information Center at

California State University Bakersfield (SSJVIC 2013). Development of the new campus site would not

substantially change the significance of a historical resource.

Other Nearby Historic Resources

Seven historic resources in the China Lake area are eligible listing in the National Register of Historic Places:

Administration Building, Dispensary, Michelson Lab, Theater, Senior Officer Quarters, Hangar 1, and

Lauritsen Laser & Optical Lab. None of these resources were identified as located adjacent to the existing

school or the proposed new campus site. Therefore, demolition of the existing campus and development of

the new facility site would not substantially change the significance of nearby historical resources.

Conclusions

Project implementation would not have a direct or indirect impact on historic resources. Impacts would be

less than significant, and no mitigation is needed.

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

§ 15064.5?

Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. No cultural resources were identified in a

foot survey of the site by qualified archaeologists. Two small obsidian stone scatters, both ineligible for

CRHR listing, were identified within one mile of the new school site in previous cultural resources studies of

nearby sites. However, there are abundant Native American cultural resources in China Lake—for instance,

the Coso Rock Art District, a National Historic Landmark, and Coso Hot Springs, listed on the National

Register of Historic Places. Both areas are in the northern part of the North Range of China Lake. One

prehistoric lithic scatter was identified offsite and within 0.5 mile of the proposed new campus site in a

cultural records search by the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center; the listing/eligibility status of

this site was not indicated (SSJVIC 2013). While a large area of the proposed school site is within an area

previously developed with residential uses, buried archaeological resources may still exist, especially in areas

that were not previously developed, and project grading and construction activities could damage such

resources. With the implementation of CUL-1, this potentially significant impact would be reduced to less

than significant.

Demolition of the existing campus and removal of the demolition debris would disturb soil that was

previously disturbed during construction of the school. No impact to buried archaeological resources would

result, and no mitigation measures would be required for demolition activities at the existing campus.

Mitigation Measure

CUL-1 The District shall retain a qualified archaeologist to periodically monitor all ground-

disturbing activities. The qualified archaeologist shall meet the Secretary of the Interior’s

Professional Qualifications Standards (48 Federal Register 44738-39). The archaeologist must



Page 70 PlaceWorks

have knowledge of both prehistoric and historical archaeology. The methods of

archaeological monitoring, including timing, location, types of artifacts anticipated, and

procedures for additional analysis, if necessary, shall be described in an archaeological

monitoring plan. The extent and duration of the monitoring program will be dependent on

the grading plans and the level of sensitivity assessed. The archaeologist shall determine the

required duration and extent of monitoring. The construction manager shall adhere to the

stipulations of the archaeological monitoring plan. The archaeologist shall have the authority

to halt any project-related activities adversely impacting potentially significant resources. If

archaeological resources are uncovered, they must be recovered and curated with the

facilities acceptable to the District and DOD. Suspension of ground disturbances in the

vicinity of the discoveries shall not be lifted until the archaeological monitor has evaluated

discoveries to assess whether they are classified as historical resources or unique

archaeological sites, pursuant to CEQA and federal requirements.

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

feature?

Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed new school site is on the

floor of the Indian Wells Valley and has an east slope of about 1 percent; there are no known unique

geological features onsite. While a large area of the proposed school site was previously developed with

residential uses, the possibility exists that fossils are buried in areas not previously developed. With the

implementation of CUL-2, the potentially significant impact on paleontological resources would be reduced

to less than significant.

Demolition of the existing campus and removal of the demolition debris would disturb soil that was

previously disturbed during construction of the school. No impact to buried paleontological resources would

result, and no mitigation measures would be required for demolition activities at the existing campus.

Mitigation Measure

CUL-2 The District shall retain a qualified paleontologist to periodically monitor ground-disturbing

activities. The paleontologist shall determine the minimum depth of excavations requiring

monitoring. The paleontologist shall have the authority to halt any project-related activities.

If paleontological resources are uncovered, they must be recovered, analyzed in accordance

with DOD and CEQA guidelines, and curated with facilities acceptable to the District and

DOD.

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

Less Than Significant Impact. Considering the extensive cultural resources present within the project area,

it is possible that human remains would be uncovered during construction activities. California Health and

Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that if human remains are discovered, disturbance of the site shall halt

and remain halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner, and cause

of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains



July 2015 Page 71

have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative. If the

coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner has reason to

believe the human remains to be those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24

hours, the Native American Heritage Commission. The project would comply with existing law, and potential

impacts to human remains would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

The information and analysis in this section are based in part on the following technical studies:

Geotechnical Engineering Investigation and Geologic/Seismic Hazards Evaluation, Proposed Murray Middle School,

Ridgecrest, California, BSK Associates, November 9, 2012. A complete copy of this report is included as

Appendix F.1 of this Initial Study.

Fault Rupture Hazard Investigation Report, Proposed Murray Middle School, Ridgecrest, California, BSK Associates,

October 17, 2012. A complete copy of this report is included as Appendix F.2.

Amendment to Geotechnical Engineering Investigation and Geologic/Seismic Hazards Evaluation [Rigid Concrete

Pavement Design], Proposed Murray Middle School, Ridgecrest, California, BSK Associates, December 12, 2013. A

complete copy of this report is included as Appendix F.3.

Update Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed Murray Middle School, Ridgecrest, California, BSK

Associates, February 4, 2015. A complete copy of this report is included as Appendix F.4.

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

injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo

Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other

substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special

Publication 42.

Less Than Significant Impact. Multiple splays or traces of the Little Lake fault zone, oriented in

various directions, are within several miles of the new school site (see Figure 14, Geologic Map). Most of

the splays are classified as active.2 An Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone is centered on one splay of

the Little Lake Fault Zone about 1,800 feet west of the new school site (see Figure 15, Area Fault Map).

An active fault splay was identified under the easternmost part of the Burroughs High School campus—

that is, the football/soccer stadium and a practice field (see Figure 15)—by a fault study investigation in

2008. Historically, the Little Lake Fault has produced periodic earthquake swarms with magnitudes

generally less than 5.6 (see Figure 16, Earthquake Location Map). The latest swarm occurred in 1995 and

2 The referenced splays are designated post-glacial on fault maps in the Fault Rupture Hazard Investigation. Active faults are those showing evidence of surface displacement within approximately the last 11,500 years, that is, the time since the last major glacial epoch, or “ice age”.



Page 72 PlaceWorks

was located 9 miles northeast of the new school site. The magnitude of an earthquake is a measure of

the energy released by the earthquake. Each one-point increase in magnitude represents a tenfold increase

in ground motion amplitude and a 32-fold increase in energy. That is, a magnitude 7 earthquake produces

100 times (10 x 10) the ground motion amplitude of a magnitude 5 earthquake.

BSK Associates completed a Fault Rupture Hazard Investigation for the new school site in October

2012; the investigation included a geologic literature review; subsurface exploration via two trenches; and

preparation of the investigation report.

A fault zone was identified passing through the west part of the proposed new school site oriented

north-northeast to south-southwest (that is, north 22 degrees east). A thick open fracture—about three

feet below ground surface—suggests recent movement on the fault, consistent with an active fault. One

exploratory trench extended east-west across nearly the entire new school site; the second, much shorter

and in the western part of the site, was excavated to determine the direction of the fault identified in the

first trench. The fault hazard investigation report recommended that structures for human occupancy be

set back at least 50 feet from the fault zone. No other fault zones were identified onsite in the fault

rupture hazard investigation.

Project development of the new school would comply with recommendations in the Fault Hazard

Investigation Report, and the proposed project would not expose people or structures to substantial

hazards from surface rupture of a known active fault. Impacts would be less than significant. No

mitigation is required.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

Less Than Significant Impact. A fault zone, which appears to be active, was identified onsite (see

Section 3.6.a.i above). Numerous other splays of the Little Lake Fault Zone—many of them classified as

active—have been mapped in the Indian Wells Valley. Other known active faults in the region include the

Garlock Fault about 12 miles south of the new school site, and the Tank Canyon Fault about 23 miles to

the east (see Figure 5 in the Fault Rupture Hazard Investigation, Appendix F.2 of this Initial Study). Periodic

earthquake swarms on the Little Lake Fault have been recorded, with magnitudes generally less than 5.6.

Strong ground shaking is very likely to occur onsite during the design lifetime of the proposed new

school. Seismic design criteria for the proposed structures are included in the Updated Geotechnical

Engineering Investigation (see Appendix F.4). Compliance with recommendations of the Geotechnical

Engineering Investigation report is required. Therefore, project development would not expose people or

structures to substantial hazards from strong ground shaking, and impacts would be less than significant.

No mitigation is necessary.



July 2015 Page 73

Figure 14 Geologic Map



Page 74 PlaceWorks




July 2015 Page 75

Figure 15 Area Fault Map



Page 76 PlaceWorks




July 2015 Page 77

Figure 16 Earthquake Location Map



Page 78 PlaceWorks




July 2015 Page 79

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction refers to loose, saturated sand or silt deposits that behave

as a liquid and lose their load-supporting capability when strongly shaken. Loose granular soils and silts

that are saturated by relatively shallow groundwater are susceptible to liquefaction. Groundwater under

the new school site is about 105 feet below ground surface (bgs) (Mielke 2015). Thus, liquefaction

potential onsite is considered very low. In addition, the site is not mapped in a zone of required

investigation for liquefaction by the California Geological Survey. Project development would not subject

people or structures to substantial hazards due to liquefaction, and impacts would be less than significant.

No mitigation is required.

iv) Landslides?

No Impact. Development of the new school would not subject people or structures to landslide

hazards, as the site and surroundings have an east slope of about 1 percent. No impact would occur, and

no mitigation is needed.

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

Less Than Significant Impact. Since the area of the proposed new school is greater than one acre, the

construction contractor would be required to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) General Construction Permit requirements and would be required to prepare and comply with the

requirement of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP). The requirement of a SWPPP has

been incorporated into the project description as a best management practice (BMP), with two major

objectives: to help identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants that could affect the quality of

stormwater discharges, and to describe and ensure implementation of measures to reduce or eliminate

sediment and other pollutants in stormwater as well as non-stormwater discharges. Furthermore, the SWPPP

BMPs would: (1) prevent pollutants from contacting stormwater during all phases of construction; (2)

provide a site description; (3) implement proposed postconstruction controls; and (4) provide for non-

stormwater management. Implementation of these mandatory control measures would ensure that the

proposed project would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during

construction. Therefore, with adherence to the abovementioned regulations, including adherence to the

requirements of the NPDES General Construction Permit and a SWPPP, implementation of the proposed

project would not violate water quality standards and waste discharge requirements.

Demolition of the existing campus would comply with the above-referenced regulatory requirements. The

proposed project would have a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result

of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,

liquefaction, or collapse?

Less Than Significant Impact. Development of the new school would not cause hazards from liquefaction

or landslides, as substantiated above in Sections 3.6.a.iii and 3.6.a.iv, respectively. Lateral spreading is the



Page 80 PlaceWorks

downslope movement of surface sediment due to liquefaction in a subsurface layer. Hazards arising from

lateral spreading would be very low due to the very low liquefaction potential onsite.

Ground Subsidence

The major causes of ground subsidence are withdrawal of groundwater and of oil. The new school site is not

in an area susceptible to subsidence due to petroleum or groundwater withdrawal.

Collapsible Soils

Hydrocompaction is the consolidation of loose dry soils from the infiltration of water. Materials of unusually

low density deposited in areas of low rainfall undergo significant compaction when they become thoroughly

wetted. Consolidation tests on samples of subsurface site soils show that soils at the new school site do not

appear to have a potential for hydrocompaction. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is

necessary.

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),

creating substantial risks to life or property?

Less Than Significant Impact. The soil in the upper 50 feet across the new school site generally consists

of medium to very dense sand and silty sand that may be considered to have a low expansion potential.

However, the upper two feet of sandy clay is considered moderately expansive; shallow foundations

susceptible to damage from expansive soils will require excavation of the moderately expansive soil. The

geotechnical investigation report recommends excavation of existing soils to five feet below existing grade, or

two feet below the bottom of foundation footings, whichever is greater; and provides recommendations for a

foundation design to minimize hazards from expansive soils. Development of the new school would comply

with recommendations of the geotechnical investigation report, and thus would not cause substantial hazards

arising from expansive soils. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water

disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

No Impact. Project development would include the installation of sewer pipes and laterals connecting to an

existing sewer near Burroughs High School. The project would not require the use of septic tanks or other

alternative wastewater disposal systems, and no impact would occur.

3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Scientists have concluded that human activities are contributing to global climate change by adding large

amounts of heat-trapping gases, known as greenhouse gases (GHGs), into the atmosphere. The primary

source of these GHG is fossil fuel use. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has

identified four major GHG—water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and ozone (O3)—that are

the likely cause of an increase in global average temperatures observed within the 20th and 21st centuries.



July 2015 Page 81

Other GHG identified by the IPCC that contribute to global warming to a lesser extent include nitrous oxide

(N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydro fluorocarbons, per fluorocarbons, and chlorofluorocarbons.3, 4

This section analyzes the project’s contribution to global climate change impacts in California through an

analysis of project-related GHG emissions. Information on manufacture of cement, steel, and other “life-

cycle” emissions that would occur as a result of the project are not applicable and are not included in the

analysis.5 A background discussion on the GHG regulatory setting and GHG modeling can be found in

Appendix C.1 to this Initial Study.

Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution

control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:

a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant

impact on the environment?

Less Than Significant Impact. Global climate change is not confined to a particular project area and is

generally accepted as the consequence of global industrialization over the last 200 years. A typical project,

even a very large one, does not generate enough greenhouse gas emissions on its own to influence global

climate change significantly; hence, the issue of global climate change is, by definition, a cumulative

environmental impact.

The proposed project would generate GHG emissions from vehicle trips generated by the project, energy use

(indirectly from purchased electricity use and directly through fuel consumed for building heating), area

sources (e.g., equipment used on-site, consumer products, coatings), water/wastewater generation, and waste

disposal. Annual GHG emissions were calculated for construction and operation of the project. Annual

average construction emissions were amortized over 30 years and included in the emissions inventory to

account for GHG emissions from the construction phase of the project. Project-related GHG emissions are

shown in Table 7, Net Project-Related GHG Emissions. The proposed project at buildout would result in a net

decrease of 30 metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent (MTCO2e) emissions per year compared to existing

conditions and would not exceed the EKAPCD’s bright-line threshold of 22,680 MTCO2e. Because the

3 Water vapor (H2O) is the strongest GHG and the most variable in its phases (vapor, cloud droplets, ice crystals). However, water

vapor is not considered a pollutant, but part of the feedback loop rather than a primary cause of change. 4 Black carbon contributes to climate change both directly, by absorbing sunlight, and indirectly, by depositing on snow (making it melt faster) and by interacting with clouds and affecting cloud formation. Black carbon is the most strongly light-absorbing component of PM emitted from burning fuels. Reducing black carbon emissions globally can have immediate economic, climate, and public health benefits. California has been an international leader in reducing emissions of black carbon, with close to 95 percent control expected by 2020 due to existing programs that target reducing PM from diesel engines and burning activities (CARB 2014b). However, state and national GHG inventories do not yet include black carbon due to ongoing work resolving the precise global warming potential of black carbon. Guidance for CEQA documents does not yet include black carbon. 5 Life cycle emissions include indirect emissions associated with materials manufacture. However, these indirect emissions involve numerous parties, each of which is responsible for GHG emissions of their particular activity. The California Resources Agency, in adopting the CEQA Guidelines Amendments on GHG emissions found that lifecycle analyses was not warranted for project-specific CEQA analysis in most situations, for a variety of reasons, including lack of control over some sources, and the possibility of double-counting emissions (see Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action, December 2009). Because the amount of materials consumed during the operation or construction of the proposed project is not known, the origin of the raw materials purchased is not known, and manufacturing information for those raw materials are also not known, calculation of life cycle emissions would be speculative. A life-cycle analysis is not warranted (OPR 2008).



Page 82 PlaceWorks

GHG emissions associated with the project would not exceed the EKAPCD’s bright-line threshold, the

proposed project’s cumulative contribution to GHG emissions is less than significant and no mitigation

measures are required.

Table 7 Net Project-Related GHG Emissions Source MTCO2e/year1 Percent of Total

Existing

Area <1 <1%

Energy 381 48%

Mobile 340 43%

Waste 49 6%

Water 18 2%

Total 788 100%

Proposed Project

Area <1 <1%

Energy1 185 24%

Mobile 456 60%

Waste 74 10%

Water 24 3%

Amortized Construction Emissions2 18 2%

Total 758 100%

Net Change

Area <1 NA

Energy1 -196 NA

Mobile 116 NA

Waste 25 NA

Water 6 NA

Amortized Construction Emissions2 18 NA

Total Emissions -30 NA

EKAPCD’s Bright-Line Threshold 22,680 NA

Exceeds Bright-Line Threshold No NA

Source: CalEEMod, Version 2013.2.2. Notes: Totals may not equal to the sum of the values shown due to rounding. MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent. 1 For purposes of this GHG analysis, buildings on proposed land uses are assumed to comply with the 2013 Building and Energy Efficiency. Standards, which are

25 and 30 percent more energy efficient for residential and nonresidential buildings, respectively, than the 2008 standards. This analysis assumes new buildings of all land use types exceed the 2008 standards by 30 percent. Includes applicable water efficiency improvements required under CALGreen.

2 Total construction emissions are amortized over 30 years.

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

emissions of greenhouse gases?

Less Than Significant Impact. In accordance with AB 32, the California Air Resources Board (CARB)

developed the Scoping Plan to outline the state’s strategy to achieve 1990 level emissions by year 2020. To

estimate the reductions necessary, CARB projected statewide 2020 business as usual (BAU) GHG emissions

and identified that the state as a whole would be required to reduce GHG emissions by 28.5 percent from

year 2020 BAU to achieve the targets of AB 32 (CARB 2008). Since release of the 2008 Scoping Plan, CARB



July 2015 Page 83

has updated the 2020 GHG BAU forecast to reflect GHG emissions in light of the economic downturn and

measures not previously considered in the 2008 Scoping Plan baseline inventory. The revised BAU 2020

forecast shows that the state would have to reduce GHG emissions by 21.6 percent from BAU without Pavley

and the 33 percent renewable portfolio standard (RPS), or 15.7 percent from the adjusted baseline (i.e., with

Pavley and 33 percent RPS) (CARB 2012).

Since adoption of the 2008 Scoping Plan, state agencies have adopted programs identified in the plan, and

the legislature has passed additional legislation to achieve the GHG reduction targets. Statewide strategies to

reduce GHG emissions include the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), California Appliance Energy

Efficiency regulations, California Building Standards (i.e., CALGreen and the 2013 Building and Energy

Efficiency Standards), 33 percent RPS, and changes in the corporate average fuel economy standards (e.g.,

Pavley I and California Advanced Clean Cars Program). The project would comply with these state GHG

emissions reduction measures and would not obstruct implementation of the CARB Scoping Plan.

KCOG’s 2014 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) was adopted on

June 19, 2014. It identifies a forecast development pattern to accommodate the region’s future transportation,

employment, and housing needs, while promoting conservation of natural resources and open space areas.

The 2014 RTP/SCS also identifies multimodal transportation investments, including active transportation

strategies (e.g., bike ways and sidewalks), transportation demand management, transportation systems

management, and operations and maintenance to the existing multimodal transportation system (KCOG

2014). The 2014 RTP/SCS incorporates local land use projections and circulation networks from the cities’

and counties’ general plans. The projected regional development pattern, including location of land uses and

residential densities in local general plans, when integrated with the proposed regional transportation network

identified in the 2014 RTP/SCS, would reduce per capita vehicular travel-related GHG emissions and achieve

the GHG reduction per capita targets for the KCOG region. The SCS does not require that local general

plans, specific plans, or zoning be consistent with the SCS, but provides incentives for consistency for

governments and developers. The proposed project’s design, construction, and operation will be reviewed

and approved by the China Lake command and the City of Ridgecrest; therefore, it would not interfere with

KCOG’s ability to implement the regional strategies outlined in the 2014 RTP/SCS to achieve the GHG

reduction goals and strategies for passenger vehicles and light duty trucks.

3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

The information in this Section is based in part on the following technical studies:

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, New Murray Middle School (northwest Corner E. French Drive and E.

Drummond Avenue, Ridgecrest, California 93555), PlaceWorks, December 27, 2013. A complete copy of

this report is included as Appendix G.1 of this Initial Study.

Preliminary Environmental Assessment Report (PEA), New Murray Middle School, PlaceWorks, December 9,

2014. A complete copy of this report is included as Appendix G.2



Page 84 PlaceWorks

Remedial Action Workplan, New Murray Middle School, PlaceWorks, April 29, 2015. A complete copy of this

report is included as Appendix G.3.

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or

disposal of hazardous materials?

Less Than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed new school would not require extensive or

ongoing use of acutely hazardous materials or substances. While grading and construction may involve

activities requiring the transport, storage, use, or disposal of some hazardous materials, such as onsite fueling

or servicing of construction equipment, the activities would be short term and would be subject to federal,

state, and local health and safety requirements.

The types of hazardous materials associated with operation of the proposed new Murray Middle School

campus would be similar to those at the existing campus. They would generally be limited to chemicals

associated with school labs, which would be used in small amounts; and maintenance, janitorial, and repair

products, such as commercial cleansers, lubricants, paints, etc. All hazardous materials used in science labs

would be stored, handled, and disposed of in accordance with county, state, and federal laws that protect

public safety. Furthermore, the storage, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials are regulated by the

USEPA, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the Kern County Environmental

Health Services Department.6 The requirements of these agencies would be incorporated into the design and

operation of the school. This would include providing for and maintaining appropriate storage areas for

hazardous materials and installing or affixing appropriate warning signs and labels.

Compliance with applicable health and safety requirements, including manufacturers’ product labels, would

ensure that no significant hazard to the public, the students, or the environment would result through the

routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. No mitigation is required.

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable

upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the

environment?

Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, operation of the new school would not result in a

significant hazard or release hazardous materials into the environment. Storage, transport, and disposal of

hazardous materials onsite would be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the agencies

mentioned in the previous impact analysis, and there are no reasonably foreseeable upsets and accidental

conditions related to the use of hazardous materials during the operation of the proposed facility.

Operational impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.

Additionally, as discussed above, general construction activities would comply with federal, state, and local

health and safety requirements, and these types of routine construction activities are not expected to result in

the release of hazardous materials in the environment. It is possible, however, that soil remediation activities

6 The Kern County Environmental Health Services Department is the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for Kern County outside of the City of Bakersfield; the Certified Unified Program coordinates and makes consistent enforcement of several state and local laws governing hazardous materials.



July 2015 Page 85

could result in an upset or accident that could release hazardous materials into the environment. Two

pesticides are of particular interest: dieldrin and aldrin. They are generally considered nonvolatile, but can

adhere to soil particles and become airborne contaminants. As provided in the Removal Action Workplan

(RAW), during remediation activities, dust control measures would be performed to reduce the potential for

fugitive dust and migration of contamination in compliance with requirements in Kern County APCD Rule

402. Air monitoring for dust would be performed within the active work zone (i.e., “exclusion zone”) to

ensure the health and safety of remediation workers. Air monitoring would also be conducted at the

perimeter of the project site (i.e., “fenceline locations”) to ensure that unsafe concentrations of dust are not

migrating offsite. An upwind/downwind sampling approach would be used for fenceline monitoring, with

monitoring positions established based on an ongoing assessment of the prevailing wind direction. The

project site perimeter would be secured with fencing fitted with windscreens to minimize the offsite

migration of windborne dust. The generation of dust would be controlled with water applied as a light spray

to soil stockpiles, exposed excavation surfaces, excavator buckets, and internal roadways, as necessary. Onsite

meteorological monitoring would be performed concurrently with the soil removal activities to ensure that all

necessary precautions have been taken. Ambient weather conditions (e.g., wind speed, wind direction,

temperature, and relative humidity) would be monitored using a portable, onsite meteorological station with

data logging capability. The dust control and monitoring program is written into the RAW and would be

overseen by DTSC to ensure that all site activities are in compliance with the RAW. Impacts to the public and

the environment due to the release of hazardous fugitive dust would be less than significant, and no

mitigation measures would be required.

Underground utility lines remain onsite from former residential use of the site. Such lines may contain

asbestos. Naval safety policy requires the construction contractor and/or the District to contact SOHD if the

project discovers suspect asbestos-containing materials (ACM). Any required abatement and removal of ACM

would be conducted under existing state and federal regulations. Impacts concerning the potential release of

these materials into the environment would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be

required.

Demolition of the existing campus would comply with regulations of the above-referenced agencies. Given

the age of the existing campus, buildings on the campus could contain ACM, and their removal would be

conducted in accordance with applicable state and federal regulations. Impacts would be less than significant,

and no mitigation measures would be required.

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or

waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

Less than Significant Impact. There are two schools within 0.25 mile of the new school site: Burroughs

High School opposite Knox Road east of the site; and Pierce Elementary School at 674 North Gold Canyon

Street, about 925 feet southeast of the site. Project construction would emit diesel exhaust, which is

considered hazardous. However, construction would be temporary, and hazards from air emissions are

estimated for several decades of exposure; therefore, diesel emissions from project construction would not

pose substantial hazards to persons at either existing school. Additionally, as discussed above in section (b),

during remediation activities, dust control and monitoring would be performed to reduce the potential for



Page 86 PlaceWorks

migration of fugitive dust containing dieldrin and aldrin. Dust control measures would comply with

requirements contained in Kern County APCD Rule 402 and overseen by the DTSC to ensure that all

remediation activities are in compliance with established standards.

The proposed project does not include any facilities (e.g., emergency generator) that would emit hazardous

emissions or require a permit from the East Kern Air Pollution Control District. Operation of the new

middle school would be similar to that of the existing school. Limited hazardous substances would be used

during operations, such as janitorial supplies. With adherence to applicable state and federal policies and

regulations related to hazardous materials, these limited hazardous substances would not result in emissions

that would adversely affect nearby schools. Impacts from the proposed project would be less than significant,

and no mitigation measures are required.

There are no existing schools within 0.25 mile of the existing campus; the nearest school, Richmond

Elementary School, is about 2,400 feet to the north (Google Earth 2015). Demolition of the existing campus

would not emit hazardous substances within 0.25 mile of a school, and no impact would occur.

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to

Government code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the

public or the environment?

Less Than Significant Impact.

New School Site

The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the new school site included an environmental

database review (see Appendix G.1) that identified the following hazardous materials sites within 0.5 mile of

the new school site.

Burroughs High School, at 500 East French Street and opposite Knox Road east of the new school site,

is listed as a small quantity generator of hazardous wastes (SQG) on the Resources Conservation and

Recovery Act (RCRA) Generator List.

Charlon & Simolon, Inc. at 723 China Lake Boulevard, located roughly 0.5 mile west of the new school

site, is listed on the Cortese List, which identifies hazardous waste sites selected for remedial action and

underground storage tank (UST) properties having a reportable release. The site is also listed as a Leaking

Underground Storage Tank (LUST) site for a gasoline release that affected soil; the case was closed in

1990.

The Town Center Mall at Drummond Road, about 0.5 mile west-northwest of the new school site, is

listed as a Landfill or Solid Waste Disposal Site. The operator was the US Department of Navy-China

Lake. The facility closed in 1989 (CalRecycle 2015).

The database search was updated on January 26, 2015, through searches of the following databases:

GeoTracker, maintained by the State Water Resources Control Board; EnviroStor, maintained by the



July 2015 Page 87

Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC); and EnviroMapper, maintained by the USEPA. The

search radii and the center of the search area were the same as used in the aforementioned database search.

The new middle school site is listed on the EnviroStor database for a school site investigation, that is, the

above-mentioned Phase I Environmental Site Assessment.

Pierce Elementary School, at 674 North Gold Canyon Street in the City of Ridgecrest and the naval

station—about 925 feet southeast of the new school site—is listed on the EnviroStor database as a

Military Cleanup Site. The potential contaminants of concern and potential media affected are

unspecified. The case is open; a site assessment was conducted in 2006.

Vieweg Elementary School, at 348 Rowe Street in the City of Ridgecrest and the naval station—about

2,350 feet north of the new school site—is listed on the EnviroStor database as a Military Cleanup Site.

The potential contaminants of concern and potential media affected are unspecified. The case is open; a

site assessment was conducted in 2006.

China Lake Annex 1, at the northeast corner of China Lake Boulevard and Drummond Avenue, is listed

as a Military Evaluation Site on EnviroStor. The case is inactive; the listing states that evaluation was

needed as of 2005.

One Hour Cleaners, at 820A China Lake Boulevard and about 1,120 feet west of the new school site, is

listed as an SQG on the EnviroMapper database.

Home Depot USA #1089, at 575 North China Lake Boulevard, about 1,250 feet southwest of the new

school site, is listed as an SQG on the EnviroMapper database.

No offsite recognized environmental conditions (RECs) were identified in the Phase I Environmental Site

Assessment.7 None of the offsite database listings identified above in the updated search is considered an

environmental concern for the new school site. Impacts from listed hazardous materials sites would be less

than significant.

Recognized Environmental Conditions

The following RECs were identified on the new school site by the Phase I ESA:

Lead Residues in Soil: Due to the potential use of lead-based paint (LBP) in residential structures that

historically occupied the new school site, it is possible that elevated concentrations of lead could be

present in shallow soil in the northern portion of the site.

Pesticide Residues in Soil: Organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), presumably for termite control in

residential structures that historically occupied the northern portion of the proposed new school site,

7 An REC is the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substance or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: due to release to the environment; under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment.



Page 88 PlaceWorks

were detected in shallow soil. Although the results of a human health risk evaluation concluded that the

risks posed by these detected compounds fall within the acceptable range, the number of samples

actually collected on the site for this overall risk evaluation was somewhat limited, and it remains possible

that elevated concentrations of OCPs could be present in shallow soil on the northern portion of the

site. Additionally, arsenic residues may be present in soil due to the historical use of arsenical herbicides

prior to 1950. Therefore, it is possible that elevated concentrations of arsenic also may be present in

shallow soil in in the northern portion of the site.

Asbestos Containing Material: The Navy conducted an ACM cleanup in 2012 on the northern portion

of the site that historically was occupied with residential structures. Documents related to this cleanup

effort were provided by China Lake personnel. Minor ACM debris was observed in this area of the site at

the time reconnaissance was completed for the Phase I. In addition, utility pipelines abandoned in place

may contain ACM. Contractors should be made aware of the possible presence of ACM, and further

debris cleanup and possibly pipeline removal may be required before commencing with future grading

and/or construction plans.

Preliminary Environmental Assessment

A Preliminary Environmental Assessment (PEA) was completed by PlaceWorks in December 2014, including

soil sampling and testing investigating two RECs identified in the Phase I ESA—lead residues and pesticide

residues in soil—as well as additional environmental concerns identified by the DTSC: residues of

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxin, and furans that could be present in site soils due to the reported

historical use of oil on roads for dust control.

Sampling

Soil samples were collected from borings at 35 locations onsite at depths of up to 3 feet bgs.

24 soil borings from the northern part of the site analyzed for OCPs, arsenic, and lead.

Five borings from the southern part of the site analyzed for PCBs, dioxins, and furans.

Six borings from in and near the former electrical substation analyzed for PCBs.

Testing

The following test methods were used:

USEPA Method 6010B: Lead

USEPA Method 6020: Arsenic

USEPA Method 8081A: OCPs

USEPA Method 8082: PCBs

USEPA Method 8290: Dioxins/Furans



July 2015 Page 89

Test Results and Preliminary Screening Levels

Regional screening levels for some of the contaminants evaluated are set by the USEPA. California Human

Health Screening Levels are set by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.

Lead

Lead was identified at concentrations ranging up to 14.3 mg/kg; that is, background, naturally occurring

concentrations. The preliminary screening level for lead is 80 mg/kg; thus, lead does not pose a threat to

human health or the environment and is not considered a constituent of potential concern (COPC) for the

site.

Arsenic

Arsenic concentrations ranged from 0.86 to 13.1 mg/kg, with a median of 1.6 mg/kg and a 95 percent upper

confidence limit (UCL) of 4.1 mg/kg. The preliminary screening level for arsenic is 12 mg/kg. The detection

of arsenic at a concentration above the preliminary screening level in a single soil sample does not pose a

threat to human health or the environment for the following reasons: 1) at 13.1 mg/kg, the concentration

only slightly exceeds the preliminary screening level of 12 mg/kg; 2) the 95 percent UCL for the arsenic data

set is only 4.1 mg/kg, which is more representative of the actual hazard posed by arsenic concentrations

distributed throughout the site; and 3) the concentration was detected at a depth of 2.5 feet bgs (the arsenic

concentration in the overlying surface sample at this location was 1.53 mg/kg) and therefore is not readily

accessible for direct human exposure. Therefore, arsenic is not considered a COPC for the site.

Organochlorine Pesticides

Two organochlorine pesticides, aldrin and dieldrin, were identified at concentrations above preliminary

screening levels, as shown in Table 8, Organochlorine Pesticide Concentrations Identified. All of the detected OCPs

were considered COPCs.

Table 8 Organochlorine Pesticide Concentrations Identified

Pesticide

No. of Samples1

No. of Detections

Maximum Concentration

(µg/kg)

Preliminary Screening Level

(µg/kg)1

No. Exceeding Preliminary

Screening Level

Aldrin 38 13 502 31 2

Chlordane (total) 38 20 110 1,800 0

Chlordane (alpha) 38 18 58.4 1,800 0

Chlordane (gamma) 38 18 52.0 1,800 0

4,4’-DDD 38 3 2.93 2,200 0

4,4’-DDE 38 20 130 1,600 0

4,4’-DDT 38 18 87.2 1,900 0

Dieldrin 38 27 9,820 33 17

Heptachlor Epoxide 38 2 10.8 59 0 Source: PlaceWorks 2014. 1 µg/kg = micrograms per kilogram



Page 90 PlaceWorks

Polychlorinated Biphenyls

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were identified in two samples at estimated concentrations below the

concentration that can be quantified by the relevant test method. The estimated concentrations are below the

preliminary screening level of 300 µg/kg. However, PCBs were considered COPCs to assess their

contribution to the overall health risk and hazard at the site.

Dioxins/Furans

All concentrations of dioxins and furans detected from within the revised campus boundary were below the

preliminary screening level of 4.9 nanogram per kilogram (ng/kg). One concentration detected, 36.3 ng/kg,

was from a sampling location outside of the revised campus boundary. Dioxins and furans were considered

COPCs to assess their contribution to the overall health risk and hazard at the site.

Human Health Screening Evaluation

Three exposure pathways were evaluated: soil ingestion, skin absorption, and dust inhalation. Two categories

of health risks were evaluated, non-carcinogenic risks and carcinogenic risks. Non-carcinogenic risks for each

chemical and each exposure pathway are evaluated as a hazard quotient comparing average daily intake to a

reference dose or reference concentration. A hazard index is then calculated by summing the hazard quotients

for all COPCs and all pathways; the DTSC considers a hazard index of 1.0 or greater to be unacceptable for

new school sites. Carcinogenic risks are evaluated as excess cancer risk calculated by multiplying the lifetime

average daily intake by a toxicity value. The DTSC uses a risk threshold of 1 x 10-6 for new school sites.

The total cancer risk estimated from the human health screening evaluation is 3.0 x 10-4, and the total

noncancer hazard index is 3.2. Both the estimated cancer and noncancer risks exceed DTSC thresholds. The

main contributors to the estimated cancer risk are dieldrin and aldrin; after removing these two contributors

from the data, the cancer risk is estimated at 9.1 x 10-7, below the DTSC threshold. The main contributors to

noncancer risk are also dieldrin and aldrin; removing these contributors from the data leaves a remaining

hazard index of 0.12, below the DTSC threshold.

The PEA recommended soil remediation for dieldrin and aldrin contamination in four general areas in the

northern part of the site, where the former base housing was located (Figure 12, Soil Removal and Reburial

Areas):

Area A. Soil will be removed from an area of 203,430 square feet (4.7 acres) to depths ranging from 0.5

to 2.5 feet bgs, as defined by seven subareas. This portion of the removal action will generate an

estimated 6,982 cubic yards of soil.

Area B. Soil will be removed from an area of 179,160 square feet (4.1 acres) to depths ranging from 0.5

to 3.0 feet bgs, as defined by eight subareas. This portion of the removal action will generate an estimated


Area C. Soil will be removed from an area of 128,930 square feet (3.0 acres) to depths ranging from 0.5

to 3.0 feet bgs, as defined by seven subareas. This portion of the removal action will generate an

estimated 4,965 cubic yards of soil.



July 2015 Page 91

Area D. Soil will be removed from an area of 40,351 square feet (0.9 acres) to depths ranging from 0.5 to

3.0 feet bgs, as defined by six subareas. This portion of the removal action will generate an estimated


The estimated volume of impacted soil that requires removal is 20,077 cubic yards, including a 5 percent

contingency to account for the results of postremoval confirmation soil sampling. Almost all of the removed

soil can be managed as nonhazardous waste; a very small volume (<10 cubic yards) would require

management as non-RCRA hazardous waste.

Remedial Action Workplan

The District has entered into an agreement with DTSC to complete all site investigations and response

actions under the oversight of the DTSC. The Removal Action Workplan (RAW) has been prepared and

recommends the below remedial options.

Alternative 1 (No Action). This alternative is required as a baseline by which all other remedial

alternatives can be compared. This alternative involves taking no action toward a remedy or active

management to achieve the remediation goal of developing a school on the project site;

Alternative 2 (Soil Excavation and Offsite Disposal). This option involves the excavation and offsite

disposal of soil impacted by pesticides. An estimated 20,077 cubic yards of impacted soil would be

excavated to depths ranging from 0.5 to 3.0 feet bgs. Once the impacted soil is removed, confirmation

soil samples would be collected from the exposed excavation sidewalls and bottoms to confirm that the

site specific cleanup goals have been met and the removal action objectives have been achieved. Because

the site is considered to be balanced with respect to soil import/export, a similar volume of clean soil

(20,077 cubic yards) would need to be imported. Exported soil would likely be brought to the Lancaster

Landfill and Recycling Center, which is approximately 83 miles southwest of Ridgecrest, and/or the

Antelope Valley Public Landfill, which is about 95 miles southwest of Ridgecrest. It is not known at this

time where the soil would be imported from. Excavation and offsite disposal would be an effective means

of removing impacted soil and would meet the remediation goal.

Alternative 3 (Soil Excavation and Onsite Burial, Capping, and Land Use Covenant). As with Alternative

2, Alternative 3 involves the excavation and removal of an estimated 20,077 cubic yards of pesticide-

impacted soil. However, rather than offsite disposal, the excavated soil would be placed in an engineered

onsite burial cell (Figure 12) and covered by a protective soil cap, in accordance with engineering design

plans approved by the DTSC. Individual soil removal areas would be backfilled immediately after soil

samples confirm that all of the contaminated soil for that area/subarea has been removed (to the burial

cell) and DTSC has reviewed the lab data and provided informal approval to backfill. A small amount of

non-RCRA hazardous soil (<10 cubic yards) would be disposed of offsite either at the Kettleman or

Buttonwillow landfills, approximately 200 and 150 miles west of Ridgecrest, respectively. The remainder

would be loaded into end-dump trucks and transferred to the burial cell.



Page 92 PlaceWorks

Once the burial cell has been backfilled to a depth no shallower than two feet below grade, an engineered

cap would be constructed above the buried soil. The cap would consist of a permeable geotextile mat

overlain by a two-foot thick soil cover constructed using the clean soil reserved during excavation of the

burial cell. The cover soil would be applied, compacted, and graded in accordance with the approved

design plans to promote drainage and minimize wind and water erosion. Once completed, the cap would

be hydroseeded with acceptable desert vegetation to establish a vegetated root mat that would minimize

erosion and facilitate evapotranspiration. The cap would be subject to long-term inspections and

maintenance to ensure that it continues to function as intended. A land use restriction would also be

applied to the burial site, and future development options would be limited.

While the RAW identifies three potential options, Alternative 3 has been identified as the preferred alternative

because it is most cost-effective, easily implemented, and protective of future occupants of the proposed

school and the environment. Consequently, the analysis provided throughout this Initial Study considers the

impacts associated with Alternative 3.

Soil remediation activities would commence after the project is approved by the Board of Education and the

RAW is approved by DTSC. As all soil removal activities would be conducted under the oversight of DTSC

and in accordance with established methods and procedures, and actual construction of the proposed school

would not commence until after DTSC concurred that the proposed school site has been fully remediated for

school development and issued a letter of Certification of Removal Action, impacts related to hazardous

materials on the property would be less than significant. Compliance with the requirements imposed by

DTSC would reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant. No mitigation measures are

required.

Existing School Site

Three environmental databases—GeoTracker, EnviroStor, and EnviroMapper—were searched for listings on

and within 0.25 mile of the existing school site on January 26, 2015.

Murray Middle School is listed on the GeoTracker database as a Military Cleanup Site. The substance(s)

released and potential media affected are not specified. The case is open, and site assessment was

conducted in 2006, but no further information on the current status is provided on GeoTracker. The

campus is also listed as a leaking underground storage tank (LUST) site for release of waste oil, motor oil,

hydraulic oil, and lubricating oil that affected soil. The LUST case was closed in 1997.

The Navy Exchange Gas Station near the northeast corner of Richmond Road and King Avenue about

550 feet northeast of the campus is listed on GeoTracker as a LUST site. A release of gasoline affected

groundwater other than drinking water. The case is open, and verification monitoring was ongoing in

2009.

Neither of the above listings are environmental concerns with respect to the demolition of the existing

campus. Furthermore, the proposed project would result in the relocation of the school occupants to the

proposed new site, which would be remediated to acceptable standards as a part of the proposed project.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.



July 2015 Page 93

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,

within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety

hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

Less Than Significant Impact. The closest airport to the project sites is Armitage Airfield on base, 2.9

miles north of the proposed middle school site and 2.4 miles northeast of the existing campus. The proposed

school site is not aligned with any of the three airfield runways.8 All proposed buildings at the new middle

school would be one story, and the highest building would be the gymnasium building at 30 feet, no higher

than existing buildings at Burroughs High School, opposite Knox Road from the new school site.

Development of the new middle school and demolition of the existing school would not create any

substantial hazards related to aircraft approaching or departing Armitage Airfield, and no mitigation measures

are required.

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard

for people residing or working in the project area?

Less Than Significant Impact. The nearest private heliport to either project site is the Ridgecrest

Community Helicopter Heliport at 1081 North China Lake Boulevard in Ridgecrest, about 1,950 feet

northwest of the proposed school site (Airnav.com 2015). Over congested areas, helicopters must maintain

an altitude of at least 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within 2,000 feet of the aircraft, except as needed

for takeoff and landing (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14, § 91.119). Helicopters operating to or from

this heliport would comply with existing regulations regarding operating altitudes. Project development would

not cause substantial hazards related to helicopters, and no mitigation is needed.

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

emergency evacuation plan?

No Impact. China Lake’s Emergency Management Office (EMO) is responsible for emergency preparedness

and emergency response on base. Development of the proposed middle school and demolition of the

existing middle school would not interfere with implementation of EMO emergency response plans. The

District would prepare and implement an emergency evacuation plan for the proposed school in accordance

with CDE requirements. No impact would occur.

h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,

including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed

with wildlands?

No Impact. The proposed project would not expose people or structures to the risk of wildland fires. The

school sites and surrounding properties are entirely developed with urban uses, and the areas surrounding the

sites do not contain highly flammable brush or grass. No Fire Hazard Severity Zones are mapped on or near

the site by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention (CAL FIRE 2007). No impact would


8 However, Runway 14/32 is aligned with the easternmost part of the Burroughs High School campus east of the proposed middle school site.



Page 94 PlaceWorks

i) Does the proposed school site contain one or more pipelines, situated underground or

aboveground, which carry hazardous substances, acutely hazardous materials or hazardous

wastes, unless the pipeline is a natural gas line that is used only to supply natural gas to that

school or neighborhood?

Less Than Significant Impact. There are underground utilities in abandoned roadways in the north half of

the new school site from past residential uses. These utilities have been abandoned and would be removed

during site preparation. Therefore, the aforementioned utilities would not pose hazards to people at the new

school, and impacts would be less than significant.

j) Does the project site contain a current or former hazardous waste disposal site or solid waste

disposal site and, if so, have the wastes been removed?

No Impact. No current or former hazardous waste disposal site or solid waste disposal site was identified on

the new school site in the Phase I ESA or on the existing campus in a search of three databases conducted on

January 26, 2015. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is needed.

k) Is the project site a hazardous substance release site identified by the state Department of

Health Services in a current list adopted pursuant to § 25356 for removal or remedial action

pursuant to Chapter 6.8 of Division of the Health and Safety Code?

Less than Significant Impact. The DTSC maintains a list of Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites

pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 25356 consisting of listed and delisted federal Superfund sites;

State Response sites; and military investigation sites. The new school site is not listed as any of the types of

hazardous materials sites specified in Section 25356.

The existing campus is listed on the GeoTracker database as a military cleanup site. The substance(s) released

and potential media affected are not specified. The case is open, and site assessment was conducted in 2006,

but no further information on the current status is provided on GeoTracker. The District is not proposing to

build or operate a new or expanded school at the existing campus, but to move the students to the proposed

project site and demolish the existing school. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is

needed.

3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

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

Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact would occur if the proposed project resulted in the

discharge of pollutants into receiving waters, which could occur from the disturbance of soils associated with

construction activities. The proposed new school would be constructed on a site that is larger than one acre.

Since the new school site is greater than one acre, the construction contractor would be required to comply

with NPDES General Construction Permit requirements and would be required to prepare and comply with

the requirement of a SWPPP. The requirement of a SWPPP has been incorporated into the project

description as a BMP, as explained further above in Section 3.6.b. Therefore, with adherence to the



July 2015 Page 95

abovementioned regulations, including adherence to the requirements of the NPDES General Construction

Permit and a SWPPP, implementation of the proposed project would not violate water quality standards and

waste discharge requirements.

Demolition of the existing campus would comply with the above-referenced regulatory requirements. The

proposed project would have a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge

such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater

table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which

would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

Less Than Significant Impact. The projects are above the Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Basin

(IWVGB) (PlaceWorks 2013). The new school site is permeable, but is not used for intentional groundwater

recharge. The IWVGB spans 597 square miles or 38,200 acres, the vast majority of which is vacant permeable

land. Thus, development of parts of the 47-acre new school site with impermeable uses would not have a

substantial adverse impact on groundwater recharge. The project would not involve groundwater wells and

would not directly withdraw water from the IWVGB. The project would relocate the existing Murray Middle

School program to the new site; the students who would attend the new school already attend the existing

middle school just over one mile from the new school site. The project therefore would not increase regional

water demand.

Demolition of the existing campus would temporarily use a small amount of water for uses such as dust

control. Demolition would not deplete groundwater supplies and would not interfere with groundwater

recharge.

Impacts to groundwater recharge and groundwater supply would be less than significant, and no mitigation is

needed.

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the

alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in a substantial

erosion or siltation on- or off-site.

Less Than Significant Impact. The new school site slopes east with a grade of about 1 percent. Several

shallow washes cross the site; and there are degraded roadways in the north half of the site remaining from

previous residential development. Drainage is by surface flow eastward. The new school site has been divided

into four existing drainage subareas mapped on the existing hydrology map (see Hydrology Study in

Appendix H).

Subareas 1 and 2, comprising approximately the northern half of the site, consist of graded pads and streets

from the former development. Subarea 1 spans 16.9 acres of the northern and northwestern part of the site.

Drainage is generally northerly, with slopes of about 1 percent grade. Subarea 2, 3.7 acres in the north-central

part of the site, drains easterly to Knox Avenue with a 0.5 percent grade.



Page 96 PlaceWorks

Subareas 3 and 4 are in the southern half of the site and consist of vacant desert land. Subarea 3 is 7.3 acres

in the southwest part of the site. Drainage in this area is southerly, exiting the drainage area along its

southeast boundary into Drainage Area 4. Subarea 4, 13.3 acres mostly in the southeast quadrant of the site,

drains southeasterly to the intersection of Knox Avenue and Drummond Avenue.

Runoff from a 100-year storm in existing conditions is estimated below in Table 9, Existing Runoff, 100-Year

Storm.

Table 9 Existing Runoff, 100-Year Storm

Drainage Subarea Runoff, 100-year storm, cubic feet per second Area, acres

1 25.87 16.89

2 6.07 3.71

3 11.93 7.28

4 22.88 13.29

Total 66.75 41.17

Source: Mielke 2015.

Runoff from a 100-year storm with the new school is estimated below in Table 10, Estimated Runoff, Proposed

Conditions, 100-Year Storm. Runoff would increase from 66.75 in existing conditions to 82.55 in proposed

conditions, an increase of 15.8 cubic feet per second (cfs) or about 24 percent over existing conditions.

Table 10 Estimated Runoff, Proposed Conditions, 100-Year Storm Drainage Subarea Proposed Land Cover Type Runoff, 100-year storm,

cubic feet per second Area, acres

1 School (including hardcourts and retention basin)

9.68 3.53

2 School (including building, hardscape, and part of track and

field)

3.25 1.18

3 Vacant land 11.92 6.78

4 School (including buildings, landscaping, hardscape, and

retention basin)

13.34 7.08

5 Baseball field (mostly) 4.14 1.87

6 Baseball field (mostly) 2.37 0.98

7 Baseball field and retention basin 8.49 4.03

8 Vacant land and retention basin 9.58 4.55

9 School (including parking lot and retention basin)

8.21 3.33

10 Vacant land 11.57 7.28

Total Not applicable 82.55 40.61

Source: Mielke 2015.



July 2015 Page 97

Project development would include construction of nine retention basins, described in Table 11 and mapped

on Figure 17, Proposed Hydrology Map. Note that the drainage areas of all nine proposed retention basins

correspond to proposed drainage subareas 1 through 9. The only exception is Basin 7, which would

accommodate drainage from subarea 7 and receive drainage from Basins 5 and 6. The proposed retention

basins would infiltrate into the soil the estimated runoff from the site in postproject conditions from a 10-

year, 5-day storm. The retention basins would not have outlets, except for basins 5 and 6, which would have

outlets discharging into Basin 7. Drainage from the site at project completion in a 10-year, 5-day storm would

be reduced compared to existing conditions, and impacts would be less than significant.

Table 11 Proposed Retention Basins

Basin1

Tributary Area

Required Volume Design Volume Square feet Portion impervious

1 153,778 0.40 13,584 50,277

2 51,606 0.40 4,559 1,203

3 295,441 0.02 1,305 2,239

4 308,532 0.40 27,254 70,089

5 81,638 0.15 2,704 1,709

6 42,874 0.15 1,420 1,911

7 Basin 5 + Basin 6 + Basin 7 =

300,143

0.15 9,942 14,901

8 198,147 0.02 875 10,666

9 145,084 0.40 12,816 13,089

Source: Mielke 2015. 1 The drainage areas for all 9 proposed retention basins correspond to proposed drainage subareas 1 through 9; except for Basin 7, which would accommodate

drainage from subarea 7 and would receive drainage from Basins 5 and 6. Data for the 9 basins are not totaled, as totals would double-count data for basins 5 and 6.

Site preparation, grading, and construction activities on the new school site would disturb and expose large

quantities of soil. Disturbance and exposure of soil could dramatically increase soil erosion and

sedimentation if effective control measures were not used. Erosion controls and sediment controls in the

project SWPPP would be implemented during site preparation, grading, and construction of the new school.

Erosion control BMPs include mulch, geotextiles, mats, hydroseeding, earth dikes, and swales. Sediment

control BMPs include barriers such as straw bales, sandbags, fiber rolls, and gravel bag berms; desilting basins;

and cleaning measures such as street sweeping.

The existing campus slopes east with a grade of about 0.5 percent. Drainage is downgrade eastward.

Demolition of the existing campus would not change the drainage pattern on that site. The project would not

change the course of a stream or river, and no consequent erosion or siltation would occur. Impacts would be

less than significant.



Page 98 PlaceWorks

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the

alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of

surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage

patterns of the site or area in a manner that would result in flooding on- or offsite. The project would

develop about 8.5 acres of impervious areas, and thus would increase runoff on the site. Please see (c), above,

for additional discussion of stormwater drainage at the new school site.

In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with the requirements of the NPDES General

Construction Permit, as well as with the BMPs identified in the project-specific SWPPP. Compliance with

these requirements would ensure that the proposed project would not adversely affect the local drainage

system in a manner that would result in substantial flooding on- or offsite.

Demolition of the existing campus would remove the impervious surfaces on that site, thus reducing runoff

from the site. Demolition would not increase flooding on- or offsite. Impacts would be less than significant

for the proposed project, and no mitigation is required.

e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm

water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

Less Than Significant Impact. The project includes proposed detention/infiltration basins on the new

school site that would accommodate site drainage. In postproject conditions, about 8.5 acres, or about 18

percent of the project site, would be developed with impervious surfaces; the remainder of the site would

remain permeable. Considering the limited portion of the site that would be impervious at project

completion, plus the proposed detention/infiltration basins, project development would not substantially

increase runoff from the site and would not significantly impact offsite stormwater drainage systems. The

project would not require construction of new or expanded offsite storm drainage infrastructure, and no

adverse impact on storm drainage systems would occur.

Demolition of the existing campus would reduce runoff from that site and would have no adverse impact on

storm drainage capacity. Demolition would comply with the same regulatory requirements as construction of

the new campus. Project water quality impacts would be less than significant, as substantiated above in

Sections 3.6.b and 3.9.a. No mitigation measures are required.

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

Less Than Significant Impact. The project construction and demolition contractor(s) would be required to

prepare and implement a SWPPP (see discussion in Section 3.6.b, above). Erosion control and sediment

control BMPs are summarized above in Section 3.9.c; SWPPPs also prescribe other categories of BMPs such

as prohibitions of discharges of material other than stormwater; and management of materials and wastes.

After compliance with existing regulations, project impacts on water quality or water pollution would be less

than significant, and no mitigation is required.



July 2015 Page 99

Figure 17 Proposed Hydrology Map



Page 100 PlaceWorks




July 2015 Page 101

g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard

Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

No Impact. The new school site is designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as

within flood zone X, indicating that it is outside of 100-year and 500-year flood zones (FEMA 2014). The

proposed project would not introduce any new flood hazards or place structures or people within a 100-year

flood hazard zone. Furthermore, the proposed project would not relocate or create new housing. The existing

campus is also in Zone X; demolition of the existing campus would have no adverse impacts related to 100-

year flood zones. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.

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

No Impact. The new school site is designated by FEMA as outside of 100-year and 500-year flood zones.

The proposed project would not introduce any new flood hazards or place structures within a flood zone that

would impede or redirect flood flows. Demolition of the existing campus would have no adverse impacts

related to 100-year flood zones. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.

i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,

including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

Less than Significant Impact. There are no dams in the region that would pose a flood risk to people or

structures on the new school site, and no impact would occur. The new school site is not in an area

designated by FEMA as protected from 100-year floods by levees. the Demolition of the existing campus

would not create a flood hazard due to levee or dam failure. No mitigation is required.

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

No Impact. A seiche is a surface wave created when a body of water is shaken, usually by earthquake activity.

There are no surface water bodies near the new school site that could pose a flood risk to the site due to a

seiche. A tsunami is a series of ocean waves caused by a sudden displacement of the ocean floor, most often

due to earthquakes. The new school site is 121 miles inland and separated from the Pacific Ocean by several

mountain ranges; thus, there is no tsunami flood hazard onsite. Finally, the site is not adjacent to any

significant slopes and therefore is not subject to hazard associated with mudslides. The analysis for the

proposed new school site also applies to the existing campus site. Impacts associated with seiches, tsunamis,

or mudslides would not be significant, and no mitigation is required.

3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING

a) Physically divide an established community?

No Impact. The project sites are on the China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station near the City of Ridgecrest.

Surrounding land uses of the proposed school site include Burroughs High School to the east, a city park and

sports complex to the south, commercial uses to the west, and vacant land to the north that are a part of the

fenced area of China Lake. Development of the new school would be compatible with the surrounding

institutional and park uses and would not divide an established community. The existing campus is



Page 102 PlaceWorks

surrounded by vacant land to the east, west, and south, and commercial uses to the north; after its demolition,

the property would revert back to China Lake. No impact would occur, the project would not divide an

established community, and no mitigation measures would be required.

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?

Less Than Significant Impact. Both project sites are in the Mainsite Land Management Unit in the North

Range of China Lake, which is regulated by the Department of the Navy. The Mainsite Land Management

Unit is a buffer area between the City of Ridgecrest and mission-related parts of the base. It contains the

station headquarters, principal laboratories, and most of the administrative and support functions of the

station, and it is the largest developed area at the station. The sites are mapped as disturbed areas on the

China Lake Comprehensive Land Use Management Plan. The existing campus is designated for school use

(Fox 2013) and within the fenced perimeter of the station. The new school site is outside the fence line.

While the new school site has not been designated for school use, it is within the buffer zone and has been

identified by the Navy as an acceptable site for the relocation for the existing Murray Middle School program.

Additionally, although the new school site is not within the jurisdiction of the City of Ridgecrest and is

identified as Military use in its General Plan Map, the city’s zoning map designates the site as Urban Reserve

(UR), which is land held in reserve for future urban expansion. According to the city municipal code, the

proposed school use would be an acceptable, but conditioned use under the UR designation. Since the lead

agency for the proposed project is the District and the new school site is technically on federal property, no

substantial conflicts with the city’s land use plan and zoning designation would occur. Impacts would be less

than significant. No mitigation measures are required.

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

Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.

West Mojave Plan

The project sites are in the plan area of the WMP, which covers approximately 9.3 million acres of the

western portion of the Mojave Desert, including parts of Inyo, Los Angeles, Kern, and San Bernardino

counties. The WMP is an interagency Habitat Conservation Plan that is being prepared by the Bureau of

Land Management (BLM) in collaboration with federal and state agencies as well as the cities and counties in

the HCP area. China Lake is in the WMP area and is a participating agency.

The purpose of the WMP is to conserve and protect the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) and nearly 100

other sensitive plant and wildlife species as well as the habitats on which these species depend, while also

providing developers of public and private projects with a streamlined program for compliance with FESA

and CESA. The WMP allows incidental take of covered species on 3.2 million acres of public lands and 2.9

million acres of private lands within the WMP area, and it would be consistent with the resource management



July 2015 Page 103

plans adopted by each of the region’s five military bases as well as with the Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan.

The term of the WMP is 30 years.

In 2009 the US District Court for Northern California issued a summary judgment requiring a lower court to

take further action on the off-highway vehicle route designations in the WMP. New route designations must

be made by September 2015 (Alden Environmental 2013; BLM 2015).

Land use and resource conservation policies at the new and existing school sites are established by the

commanding officer of China Lake. After implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2, project

development would not have substantial impacts on sensitive resources protected under the WMP or

otherwise conflict with the WMP.

Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan

A DRECP is under preparation for over 22 million acres of the California desert, and portions of China

Lake, including the project sites, are within the DRECP area. The draft DRECP and associated EIR/EIS

were circulated for a public comment period extending from September 26, 2014, to February 23, 2015.The

proposed new school site is leased by SSUSD as a prospective school site; no renewable energy projects

subject to the DRECP are proposed onsite; and no impact would occur. No mitigation measures are required.

3.11 MINERAL RESOURCES

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

and the residents of the state?

No Impact. No mineral resource zones have been designated on or near the new school or existing school

sites, and the California Geological Survey has not designated an aggregate mineral resource production-

consumption zone in the Indian Wells Valley (Miller 2012). The nearest known and inferred significant

mineral resources to the new school site mapped by the California Geological Survey are near the town of

Johannesburg, about 17 miles south of the site (CGS 1999). No known mineral resources valuable to the

region and the state exist onsite. The nearest mines to the new school site mapped on the Office of Mine

Reclamation’s Mines Online website are two sand and gravel mines, the Potlatch Mine and the Bowman Mine,

both about 5 miles west of the sites (OMR 2015). Project implementation would not cause a loss of

availability of known mineral resources. No impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required.

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated

on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

No Impact. No mining sites are designated in the City of Ridgecrest General Plan. The proposed new

school site is surrounded by a high school, commercial uses, and fenced premises of the station that would

preclude use of the site for mining. Demolition of the existing campus would not cause a loss of availability

of known mineral resources. Project implementation would have no impact on a mineral resource recovery

site, and no mitigation is required.



Page 104 PlaceWorks

3.12 NOISE

Noise is defined as unwanted sound and is known to have several adverse effects on people, including hearing

loss, speech and sleep interference, physiological responses, and annoyance. Based on these known adverse

effects of noise, the federal government, the State of California, and Kern County have established criteria to

protect public health and safety and to prevent disruption of certain human activities. Characterization of

noise and vibration, existing regulations, and calculations for construction noise and vibration levels can be

found in Appendix I to this Initial Study.

Terminology and Noise Descriptors The following are brief definitions of terminology used in this chapter:

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

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

A-Weighted Decibel (dBA). An overall frequency-weighted sound level in decibels that approximates

the frequency response of the human ear.

Equivalent Continuous Noise Level (Leq). The energy-average noise level over a specified

measurement period (typically one hour). The Leq metric is a single numerical value that represents the

equivalent amount of variable sound energy received by a receptor over the specified duration.

Statistical Sound Level (Ln). The statistical sound levels, or n-exceeded sound levels, are noise metrics

that represent fractional percentages of the measurement period that are exceeded for ‘n’ percent of the

time. For example, the L50 noise level represents the noise level that is exceeded 50 percent of the time

(i.e., half the time the noise level exceeds this level and half the time the noise level is less than this level).

This level is also representative of the level that is exceeded 30 minutes in an hour. Similarly, the L02, L08,

and L25 represent the noise levels that are exceeded 2, 8, and 25 percent of the time, respectively (or 1, 5,

and 15 minutes per hour). These statistical sound levels are typically used to demonstrate compliance

with a noise ordinance for stationary noise sources.

Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn or DNL). The energy-average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring

during a 24-hour period, with 10 dB added to the sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00

PM to 7:00 AM.

Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The energy average of the A-weighted sound levels

occurring during a 24-hour period with 5 dB added to the sound levels occurring during the period from

7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and 10 dB added to the sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 PM to

7:00 AM.



July 2015 Page 105

Note: For general community/environmental noise, CNEL and Ldn values rarely differ by more than 1 dB.

As a matter of practice, Ldn and CNEL values are considered to be equivalent/ interchangeable and are

treated as such in this assessment.

Existing Conditions The project site is on the edge of a developed area of the City of Ridgecrest and subject to noise from

transportation and stationary sources. The area currently consists of school, residential, recreational,

commercial, and medical uses.

Nearby Noise Sources

On-Road Vehicles

On-road vehicles represent the most prominent source of noise near the proposed new school site and

existing campus. The majority of traffic and resultant noise are associated with China Lake Boulevard for the

new site and Inyokern Road for the existing facility. Existing traffic noise conditions at the new school site

were modeled using the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Traffic Noise Prediction computer

model. Table 12, Existing Conditions Traffic Noise Levels (New School Site) lists the calculated existing noise levels

on roadways in the vicinity of the project site at 50 feet from the roadway centerline.

Table 12 Existing Conditions Traffic Noise Levels (New School Site)

Roadway Segment

Daily Traffic

Volumes

Noise Level at 50 Feet

(dBA CNEL)

Distance to Noise Contour (feet)

70 dBA CNEL

65 dBA CNEL

60 dBA CNEL

Drummond Ave. N Norma St. to China Lake Blvd. 8,600 67.0 31 68 146

Drummond Ave. China Lake Blvd. to French Ave. 3,800 62.0 15 32 68

Las Flores Ave. N Norma St. to China Lake Blvd. 6,200 65.1 24 51 110

Las Flores Ave. China Lake Blvd. to French Ave. 2,200 59.2 10 21 44

French Ave. N Alvord St. to China Lake Blvd. 3,000 58.6 9 19 40

French Ave. China Lake Blvd. to Las Flores Ave. 5,000 64.2 21 44 95

French Ave. Las Flores Ave to Drummond Ave. 6,000 65.0 23 50 108

Ridgecrest Blvd. N Norma St. to China Lake Blvd. 9,300 65.1 24 51 109

Ridgecrest Blvd. China Lake Blvd. to Sunland St 11,100 68.1 37 80 173

China Lake Blvd./US 395/SR 178 Ward Ave. to Drummond Ave. 14,600 67.9 36 78 167

China Lake Blvd./US 395/SR 179 Drummond Ave. to Las Flores Ave. 15,000 68.0 37 79 170

China Lake Blvd./US 395/SR 180 Las Flores Ave. to French Ave. 16,000 68.3 38 82 178

China Lake Blvd./US 395/SR 181 French Ave. to Ridgecrest Blvd. 20,400 69.3 45 97 209

China Lake Blvd./US 395/SR 182 Ridgecrest Blvd. to Upjohn Ave. 17,100 68.5 40 86 186 Source: FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model based on traffic information found in Section 3.16, Transportation/“Traffic”. Calculations included in Appendix I.

Airports

The nearest public airport is Inyokern Airport, located approximately 9.4 miles west of the proposed new

school site. The nearest private airport is Armitage Field at the naval air weapons station, approximately 3.4

miles to the northwest. Additionally, Ridgecrest Community Hospital Heliport and Southern California

Edison Ridgecrest Service Center Heliport are approximately 0.5 miles northwest and 1.4 miles south of the

project site, respectively. Aircraft overflights are sporadically heard, but are not a substantial contributor to

community noise levels in the vicinity of the project site.



Page 106 PlaceWorks

Stationary-Source Noise

The existing school ground is shared with the District’s maintenance warehouse. Sound levels from bus

movements, mechanical equipment, and repair activities at the District facilities may occasionally be heard at

the existing school campus. Surrounding the existing school and maintenance facility to the east, south, and

west are vacant land. North of the school site, across Inyokern Road, is a training facility used by the Navy, as

well as Bennington Plaza, which includes a commissary, post office, barber shop, gymnasium, and theater.

Stationary-source noise from Bennington Plaza would mostly consist of vehicle-related activities in the

parking lots, along with noise from heaters, ventilation systems, pumps, compressors, and air conditioning

equipment at the commercial uses.

Stationary-source noise from commercial operations near the proposed new school site results primarily from

mechanical sources and systems, including HVAC systems, refrigeration equipment, and loading/unloading

activities, primarily from the commercial/ warehousing uses to the west. Noise from the adjacent Burroughs

High School (to the east) includes periodic outdoor student activity throughout the day, as well as drop-off

and pick-up traffic at the beginning and end of school hours.

Sensitive Receptors

Certain land uses are particularly sensitive to noise and vibration. These uses include residences, schools,

hospital facilities, houses of worship, and open space/recreation areas where quiet environments are

necessary for the enjoyment, public health, and safety of the community. Commercial and industrial uses are

not considered noise- and vibration-sensitive uses.

The nearest sensitive receptor to the new middle school location is Burroughs High School (360 feet away),

across French Avenue. Other sensitive receptors include Pierce Elementary School, residences off of La

Mirage Lane, Leroy Jackson Park, the Ridgecrest Public Library, commercial buildings to the west, Spring Hill

Suites and Hampton Inn, Ridgecrest Regional Hospital, and the buildings to the north, all of which are at

least 1,000 feet from the center of the project site.

There are no sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity of the existing middle school facility.

Applicable Noise and Vibration Regulations

To limit population exposure to physically and/or psychologically damaging as well as intrusive noise levels,

the federal government, the State of California, various county governments, and most municipalities in the

state have established standards and ordinances to control noise.

City of Ridgecrest

Health & Safety Element, Noise Goals

The goal of the Noise section of the Health and Safety Element is to “maintain a desirable quality of life and

protect citizens’ health and welfare by reducing noise sources within the community and lessening the effects

of noise sources which cannot be avoided.” There are twenty policies included which support this goal, and a

Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure by Land Use table, which is modified from the state’s, shown in Table

13, Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure by Land Use.



July 2015 Page 107

Table 13 Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure by Land Use1

Land Use

Noise Level (CNEL)

0-55 56-60 61-65 66-70 71-75 75-80 >81

Residential –Low Density Single-Family, Duplex, Mobile Homes

Residential – Multiple Family, Group Homes

Motels / Hotels

Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Extended Care Facilities

Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters

Sports Arenas, Outdoor Spectator Sports

Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks

Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries

Office Buildings, Business Commercial and Professional

Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture

Normally Acceptable. Specified land use is satisfactory, based on the assumption than any buildings involved are of normal, conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements.

Conditionally Acceptable. New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed insulation features have been included in the design.

Normally Unacceptable. New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Outdoor areas must be shielded.

Unacceptable. New construction or development should not be undertaken.

1 Table 8-1 in the Ridgecrest General Plan

Municipal Code

Aside from Section 4-15.101 of the Ridgecrest Municipal Code, which prohibits “loud or unusual noise or

vibration unreasonably disturbing, offending, injuring or annoying the normal sensibilities of occupants of

neighboring properties,” the City of Ridgecrest does not have specific (numerical) noise level limits.

Kern County

Exterior or Interior Noise

Chapter 8.36 Noise Control of the Kern County Code does not include interior or exterior noise level limits.

Construction Noise

With the exception of emergency work or work that has been exempted by the development services agency

director for a limited time, noise from construction is prohibited between the hours of 9:00 PM and 6:00 AM

on weekdays and 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM on weekends if it is audible at a distance of 150 feet from the

construction site and the site is within 1,000 feet of a residence.



Page 108 PlaceWorks

Vibration Standards

Section 4-15.101 of the Ridgecrest Municipal Code prohibits “Loud or unusual noise or vibration

unreasonably disturbing, offending, injuring or annoying the normal sensibilities of occupants of neighboring

properties.” Kern County does not specify any vibration standards in its County Code or General Plan. For

the purpose of this analysis, criteria set by the Federal Transit Administration will be utilized to evaluate

potential vibration impacts.

Based on the FTA Noise and Vibration Impact Guidelines (FTA 2006), an impact would occur if

construction activities would generate vibration that is strong enough to cause vibration-induced architectural

damage to existing residences. The threshold for vibration-induced architectural damage is 0.2 peak particle

velocity (PPV) in inches per second (in/sec) for typical wood-framed buildings. The threshold for human

annoyance is 0.1 PPV in/sec for sensitive receptors.

Would the project:

a) Result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established

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

Less Than Significant Impact. This section includes a discussion of potential noise impacts from project-

related traffic and stationary source noise, and evaluates impacts to the project in terms of land use and noise

compatibility.

Project-Related Traffic Noise

To determine if a project would cause a substantial noise increase from project-related traffic, consideration

must be given to the magnitude of the increase at the potentially affected receptors. In general, for

community noise, a noise level increase of 3 dBA is considered barely perceptible, while an increase of 5 dBA

is considered clearly noticeable. For conservatism, an increase of 3 dBA is often used as a threshold for a

substantial increase. A significant noise impact is determined when noise-sensitive receptors along a roadway

segment are subject to three conditions: (1) exposed to ambient noise levels over the 60 dBA CNEL

residential standard (for the “normally acceptable” category), (2) experience a cumulative noise increase

(future minus existing) over 3 dBA, and (3) the project contribution is 1 dBA or more.

The closing of the existing Murray Middle School campus would reduce the number of daily vehicle trips in

the vicinity of the existing campus, resulting in a decrease in traffic-related noise levels. Therefore, closure of

the existing campus would result in a decrease in traffic-related noise along Inyokern Road and other nearby

roadways that service the existing school facility and, as a result, there would be no impacts due to traffic

noise.

Per the project’s traffic study, the middle school would redirect approximately 1,610 daily vehicle trips from

the existing school location to roadway segments around the project site. Most of this traffic would occur in

the morning when school begins and in the afternoon when it ends.



July 2015 Page 109

To assess the project’s potential contribution to ambient noise along road segments that may be affected by

project-generated traffic, the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (RD-77-108) was used to

calculate roadway-related noise levels for pertinent scenarios associated with the new campus. The daily traffic

noise averaged over a 24-hour period was calculated at 50 feet from the study-area roadway segments for

existing and future (i.e., when the new school is proposed to open) time frames; with and without the project.

The noise level modeling results for the existing and existing-plus-project scenario are shown in Table 14,

Project Offsite Contributions, Existing Conditions. The table presents the noise level contours for selected study

area segments. The pertinent details of all the noise prediction model calculations are included in Appendix I.

Table 14 Project Offsite Contributions, Existing Conditions

Roadway Segment

CNEL at 50 feet (dBA)

Existing, No Project

Existing, Plus Project

Project Contribution

Potential Impact?

Drummond Ave. N Norma Street to China Lake Blvd. 67.0 67.2 0.2 no

Drummond Ave. China Lake Blvd. to French Ave. 62.0 62.9 0.9 no

Las Flores Ave. N Norma Street to China Lake Blvd. 65.1 65.2 0.1 no

Las Flores Ave. China Lake Blvd. to French Ave. 59.2 59.3 0.1 no

French Ave. N Alvord Street to China Lake Blvd. 58.6 58.7 0.1 no

French Ave. China Lake Blvd. to Las Flores Ave. 64.2 64.8 0.6 no

French Ave. Las Flores Ave. to Drummond Ave. 65.0 65.5 0.5 no

Ridgecrest Blvd. N Norma Street to China Lake Blvd. 65.1 65.1 0.0 no

Ridgecrest Blvd. China Lake Blvd. to Sunland St 68.1 68.2 0.1 no

China Lake Blvd./US 395/SR 178 Ward Ave. to Drummond Ave. 67.9 68.0 0.1 no

China Lake Blvd./US 395/SR 179 Drummond Ave. to Las Flores Ave. 68.0 68.0 0.0 no

China Lake Blvd./US 395/SR 180 Las Flores Ave. to French Ave. 68.3 68.3 0.0 no

China Lake Blvd./US 395/SR 181 French Ave. to Ridgecrest Blvd. 69.3 69.4 0.1 no

China Lake Blvd./US 395/SR 182 Ridgecrest Blvd. to Upjohn Ave. 68.5 68.6 0.1 no

Source: FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model by PlaceWorks; based on traffic information found in Section 3.16, Transportation/“Traffic”.

As shown in Table 14, in no case would project-generated traffic result in a 3 dB increase in ambient noise

associated with vehicle traffic. In fact, the maximum project contribution is 0.9 dBA. Thus, impacts to the

existing environment from the project would be less than significant.

The noise level modeling results for the overall increases and project contributions are shown in Table 15,

Overall Project Offsite Contributions.



Page 110 PlaceWorks

Table 15 Overall Project Offsite Contributions

Roadway Segment

CNEL at 50 feet (dBA)

Existing

2017 With

Project

Overall, Cumulative

Increase Project

Contribution Potential Impact?

Drummond Ave. N Norma St. to China Lake Blvd. 67.0 67.5 0.5 0.2 no

Drummond Ave. China Lake Blvd. to French Ave. 62.0 63.1 1.1 0.9 no

Las Flores Ave. N Norma St. to China Lake Blvd. 65.1 65.4 0.2 0.1 no

Las Flores Ave. China Lake Blvd. to French Ave. 59.2 59.5 0.2 0.1 no

French Ave. N Alvord St. to China Lake Blvd. 58.6 58.8 0.2 0.1 no

French Ave. China Lake Blvd. to Las Flores Ave.

64.2 64.9 0.7 0.6 no

French Ave. Las Flores Ave. to Drummond Ave.

65.0 65.6 0.6 0.5 no

Ridgecrest Blvd. N Norma St. to China Lake Blvd. 65.1 66.1 1.0 0.0 no

Ridgecrest Blvd. China Lake Blvd. to Sunland St 68.1 68.7 0.6 0.1 no

China Lake Blvd./US 395/SR 178 Ward Ave. to Drummond Ave. 67.9 68.6 0.8 0.1 no

China Lake Blvd./US 395/SR 179 Drummond Ave. to Las Flores Ave.

68.0 68.6 0.7 0.0 no

China Lake Blvd./US 395/SR 180 Las Flores Ave. to French Ave. 68.3 68.9 0.6 0.0 no

China Lake Blvd./US 395/SR 181 French Ave. to Ridgecrest Blvd. 69.3 70.0 0.7 0.1 no

China Lake Blvd./US 395/SR 182 Ridgecrest Blvd. to Upjohn Ave. 68.5 69.2 0.7 0.1 no

Source: FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model by PlaceWorks; based on traffic information found in Section 3.16, Transportation/“Traffic”.

As shown in Table 15, the overall traffic noise increase (2017 with Project minus Existing) along the study

area segments ranges from 0.2 to 1.1 dBA, and the project contribution would be no more than 0.9 dBA.

Since the cumulative increases for all segments would be well below the 3 dBA noise increase threshold and

project contributions for all segments would be below the 1 dBA project-related noise increase threshold,

changes in traffic noise due to implementation of the project would not result in significant long-term,

traffic-related noise impacts to offsite uses. Thus, impacts to the future environment from the project would

be less than significant.

Although there would be greater short-term increases in traffic noise when cars arrive and depart at the

beginning and end of the school day, this would be limited to relatively short periods in the morning and

afternoon, during less sensitive portions of the day. Additionally, with the exception of Burroughs High

School (which would also have drop-off and pick-up activities at roughly the same times of day as the

project), there are no sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the project. Potential noise impacts from

project-related vehicle activity would be less than significant.

In summary, with implementation of the project, changes in traffic noise would be less than significant. No

mitigation would be required.



July 2015 Page 111

Stationary-Source Noise

The closing of the existing Murray Middle School campus would eliminate stationary sources of noise

currently associated with its use, including noise from students, HVAC, and landscape maintenance.

Therefore, closure of the existing campus would result in no impacts due to stationary noise.

The nearest sensitive receptor to the new middle school location is Burroughs High School (360 feet away),

across French Avenue. Other sensitive receptors include Pierce Elementary School, residences off of La

Mirage Lane, Leroy Jackson Park, the Ridgecrest Public Library, commercial buildings to the west, Spring Hill

Suites and Hampton Inn, Ridgecrest Regional Hospital, and the buildings to the north, all of which are at

least 1,000 feet from the center of the proposed project site. Stationary noise may occur with operation new

mechanical equipment, such as HVAC equipment, at the proposed school site. Occasionally, delivery and

haul-off trucks (such as garbage trucks) would also enter and leave the site. In addition, onsite noise may be

generated by classroom bells, student conversations during recess/break periods, physical education athletic

activities at the campus playfields, and periodic landscaping maintenance activities.

The new drop-off areas and the classrooms would be at least 1,200 feet and 1,800 feet, respectively, from the

nearest residential homes off La Mirage Lane. Due to distance attenuation and because traffic flows on

French Avenue and Drummond Avenue would generally overshadow noise from stationary sources and other

campus activities at the project site, noise from the onsite school activities would not result in substantial

noise impacts during the daytime hours at noise-sensitive uses in the vicinity of the project.

Additionally, the outdoor playfields at the proposed campus would be at least 1,700 feet from the nearest

residential homes across off La Mirage Lane. While physical education and/or other athletic activities at the

campus playfields may sporadically be audible at nearby, offsite locations, these project-related sounds are not

expected to notably increase the daytime community noise environment. Moreover, the use of outdoor

playfields at the middle school would only occur for two to three hours at a time and would be during the

middle of the day (when nearby sensitive receptors would be least likely to be at home). There would be no

playfield activities in the evenings (i.e., after dusk), as no field lighting is proposed for the middle school.

Impacts associated with playfields use at the proposed middle school would not result in significant impacts

related to noise.

Noise Compatibility

The Noise Element of the City of Ridgecrest’s General Plan provides objectives, policies, and

implementation programs that are intended to achieve and maintain land use compatibility with

environmental noise levels and to ensure that city residents will be protected from excessive noise intrusion,

both now and in the future.

The noise standards specified in the Noise Element of the City of Ridgecrest General Plan are a guideline to

evaluate the acceptability of the noise levels generated by vehicular traffic. These standards are used for

assessment of long-term traffic-related noise impacts on land uses.



Page 112 PlaceWorks

The Noise Element also establishes the noise/land use compatibility criteria to be used in determining

whether a new use is appropriate within a given noise environment. As shown in Table 13, school classrooms

are considered to be normally acceptable in environments with exterior noise levels that reach up to 60 dBA

CNEL and conditionally acceptable in environments where exterior noise levels reach up to 70 dBA CNEL.

New school construction in areas where exterior noise levels range between 60 and70 dBA CNEL should be

undertaken only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements are made and needed noise

insulation features in the design are determined. Conventional construction—which would typically provide

an interior noise reduction of 20 to 25 dBA with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air

conditioning—will normally suffice to provide adequate noise insulation characteristics.

Neither the City of Ridgecrest Municipal Code nor the Kern County Code have numerical exterior or interior

noise level standards. The state interior noise level standard of 45 dBA CNEL for classrooms will be used for

purposes of this evaluation.

The closing of the existing Murray Middle School campus would result in the removal of sensitive uses, and

noise levels would decrease in the vicinity of the existing campus. Therefore, closure of the existing campus

would result in no impacts due to noise compatibility.

Based on future with-project traffic noise level contour calculations, classrooms at the new school site will be

located in areas with noise levels below 60 dBA CNEL. Normal building construction will be sufficient to

reduce interior noise levels to 45 dBA CNEL or below. Impacts due to noise compatibility are less than

significant at the project site. and no mitigation is necessary.

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

groundborne noise levels?


Operations Vibration (new site only)

Operation of the project would not include any notable sources of vibrational energy and, thus, would not

generate substantial levels of vibration. Therefore, operations of the proposed project would not result in

significant groundborne vibration, and no mitigation measures are needed.

Construction Vibration

Construction activities can possibly generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the

construction procedures, construction equipment used, and proximity to vibration-sensitive uses. Operation

of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in amplitude

with distance.

Table 16, Typical Vibration Levels Produced by Common Construction Equipment Items, shows the peak particle

velocities (PPV) of some common construction equipment and (loaded) haul trucks.



July 2015 Page 113

Table 16 Vibration Levels Produced by Common Construction Equipment

Equipment

Peak Particle Velocity in inches per second

at 25 ft. at 50 ft. at 150 ft.

Vibratory Roller 0.210 0.074 0.014

Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.031 0.006

Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.027 0.005

Jackhammer 0.035 0.012 0.002

Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.001 0.000

Source: Federal Transit Administration: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, 2006.

Vibration-inducing construction equipment typically used at development projects could include bulldozers,

jackhammers, and haul trucks. Construction equipment would be limited to relatively small equipment items,

such as forklifts, delivery/dump trucks, loaders/backhoes, rubber-tired dozers, a grader, scrapers, excavators,

a paver, rollers, concrete saws, and a crane, which do not generate substantial levels of vibration.

The existing school facilities would be demolished following the transfer of students to the new campus site.

The project would construct new classroom and administration buildings, football and baseball fields, hard

courts, parking lots, and parent and bus drop-off areas at the proposed (new) site. For purposes of this

analysis and to consider worst-case conditions, the construction of the new school will require soil

remediation, which has been assumed to involve the removal and replacement of 20,077 cubic yards of soil.

Other construction phases would center on trenching for utilities, the erection of buildings, the installation of

hardscape (such as parking lots), and the installation of softscape facilities (such as athletic fields).

Construction activities would start as early as October 2015 and would take approximately 20 months.

Architectural Damage due to Vibration

Building damage is not a factor for normal projects, with the occasional exception of blasting and pile driving

during construction (FTA 2006). The threshold at which there is a risk of architectural damage to typical

wood-framed buildings is 0.2 in/sec (FTA 2006). No blasting, pile driving, or hard rock ripping/crushing

activities are anticipated to be required for the development. Relatively small construction equipment

generates vibration levels less than 0.1 PPV in/sec at 25 feet away.

There are no vibration-sensitive uses within approximately 500 feet of the existing middle school facilities.

Due to the large distances between the closest buildings and the demolition site, the maximum construction-

related vibration levels would be well below the 0.2 PPV in/sec criteria for vibration-induced architectural

damage at nearby sensitive structures.

The nearest offsite structures to construction activities at the new school site are the commercial buildings to

the west (270 feet from the edge of construction) and Burroughs High School (360 feet away). Additionally,

houses along Sahara Drive and Bonita Street are approximately 1100 feet to the south of the project site

boundary. As with the existing facility, given the large distances between the closest buildings and the project

site, the maximum construction-related vibration levels would be well below the 0.2 PPV in/sec criteria for

vibration-induced architectural damage at the nearest structures.



Page 114 PlaceWorks

Therefore, architectural-damage vibration impacts from construction at both the existing facility and at the

project site would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are necessary.

Vibration Annoyance

The effect of groundborne vibration on buildings near a construction site varies depending on soil type,

ground strata, and receptor building construction. The generation of vibration can range from no perceptible

effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to

slight damage at the highest levels. Vibration is typically noticed nearby when objects in a building generate

noise from rattling windows or picture frames. It is typically not perceptible outdoors and, therefore, impacts

are based on the distance to the nearest building (FTA 2006). For human annoyance, the criteria of 0.1 PPV

in/sec is the level at which continuous vibration begins to annoy people. Small construction equipment

generates vibration levels less than 0.1 PPV in/sec at 25 feet away.

There are no vibration-sensitive uses within approximately 500 feet of the existing middle school facilities.

Due to the large distances between the closest buildings and the demolition site, the maximum construction-

related vibration levels would be well below the 0.1 PPV in/sec criteria for vibration-induced annoyance at

nearby sensitive structures.

For the project site, the Burroughs High School buildings are approximately 725 feet away from the center of

construction activity. Since vibration dissipates quickly with distance, the maximum construction-related

vibration level would be much less than 0.1 PPV in/sec at the high school classrooms and would be well

below the criteria for vibration-induced annoyance. Therefore, construction vibration impacts related to

annoyance would be less than significant.

Therefore, vibration annoyance impacts from construction at both the existing facility and at the project site

would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary.

Vibration Summary

In summary, both construction and operational activities would not create substantial groundborne vibration

or groundborne noise. This impact would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are needed.

c) Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above

levels existing without the project?


The proposed new school’s offsite traffic noise level increases and onsite stationary-source noise level

increases are addressed in the response to question a) above.

Per that previous discussion and assessment, there would be no substantial permanent noise level increases

and such impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required.



July 2015 Page 115

d) Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project

vicinity above levels existing without the project?

Less Than Significant Impact. Temporary noise would be generated during construction activities. In

typical construction projects, demolition and grading activities usually generate the highest noise levels since

these activities typically involve the largest construction equipment.

Project construction would require demolition at the existing school site, as well as asphalt demolition, site

preparation, rough grading, utility trenching, building construction, fine grading, paving, and

finishing/landscaping at the new school site. In general, construction equipment for the project (at both sites)

would be limited to relatively small equipment such as forklifts, delivery/dump trucks, loaders/backhoes,

rubber-tired dozers, a grader, scrapers, excavators, a paver, rollers, concrete saws, and a crane. The total

duration for school construction would be approximately 20 months.

As shown in Table 17, Typical Construction Equipment Noise Level, operational noise levels associated with most

construction equipment range between 80 and 88 dBA at 50 feet. Construction equipment typically moves

from one location on the site to another during each phase and does so with varying power levels.

Table 17 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Level

Type of Equipment Range of Maximum Sound Levels Measured

(dBA at 50 ft.) Suggested Maximum Sound Levels for Analysis

(dBA at 50 ft.)

Jack Hammers 75–85 82

Pneumatic Tools 78–88 85

Pumps 74–84 80

Dozers 77–90 85

Scrapers 83–91 87

Haul Trucks 83–94 88

Cranes 79–86 82

Portable Generators 71–87 80

Rollers 75–82 80

Tractors 77–82 80

Front-End Loaders 77–90 86

Hydraulic Backhoe 81–90 86

Hydraulic Excavators 81–90 86

Graders 79–89 86

Air Compressors 76–89 86

Trucks 81–87 86

Source: Bolt, Beranek & Newman; Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants, 1987.

Given the distances to nearby receptor locations, construction equipment items can be analyzed as localized

point sources. Noise from such localized point sources decreases by approximately 6 dB with each doubling



Page 116 PlaceWorks

of distance from the source to any given receptor. Thus, noise from a particular equipment item that

produced a sound level of 86 dBA at 50 feet would be expected to have a sound level of 80 dBA at 100 feet,

74 dBA at 200 feet, 68 dBA at 400 feet, 62 dBA at 800 feet, 56 dBA at 1,600 feet, and so forth.

Implementation of the project would involve demolition of the school’s existing buildings at 921 East

Inyokern Road, which would last approximately one month. Due to the short duration of the activities, the

lack of noise-sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity, and since activities would occur during the least

noise-sensitive portion of the day, demolition noise at the existing location would be less than significant.

At the new school site, the loudest phases of construction activity—site preparation and rough grading—

would reach levels of 64 to 65 dBA Leq at Burroughs High School, the nearest sensitive receptor, and could

reach maximum levels of 68 dBA Lmax (calculations included in Appendix I). After exterior-to-interior noise

reduction (which is typically from 20 to 25 dB), these levels would not be loud enough to disrupt classroom

activities at the high school.

Other nearby sensitive receptors include Pierce Elementary School, residences off of La Mirage Lane, Leroy

Jackson Park, the Ridgecrest Public Library, commercial buildings to the west, Spring Hill Suites and

Hampton Inn, Ridgecrest Regional Hospital, and the buildings to the north; all of which are at least 1,000

feet from the center of construction activities.

Construction of the new school will require soil remediation, which has been assumed to involve the removal

and replacement of 20,077 cubic yards of soil, for a worst-case analysis. The project would construct new

classroom and administration buildings, football and baseball fields, hard courts, parking lots, and parent and

bus drop-off areas.

According to the Kern County Code, construction is prohibited between the hours of 9:00 PM and 6:00 AM

on weekdays and 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM on weekends if it is audible at a distance of 150 feet from the

construction site and the site is within 1,000 feet of a residence. While the implementation of the project

would result in a temporary increase in ambient noise resulting from the use of construction equipment,

these potentially audible increases would be beyond the 1,000 foot threshold for residential land uses. With

distance attenuation, the construction noise levels would not be expected to markedly effect the general

community noise environment (particularly in comparison to much-closer traffic flows). Additionally, any

increase in noise levels would cease upon completion of construction.

Since receptors would experience average exterior noise levels of less than 60 dBA Leq, since construction

activities would occur during the least noise-sensitive portion of the day, and since construction activities

would be short-term, noise impacts due to construction would be less than significant, and no mitigation

measures would be necessary.



July 2015 Page 117

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,

within two miles of a public airport or public-use airport, would the project expose people

residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels?

No Impact. There are no public-use airports within two miles of the project site. The nearest public airport

to both project sites is Inyokern Airport. Aircraft overflights are sporadically heard, but do not cause a

substantial noise impact in the vicinity of the project site.

The proposed project would relocate the existing middle school program from its current location, which is

only 1.3 miles away from Inyokern Airport to the new site, approximately 9.4 miles to the west (AirNav,

Google-Earth 2015).

At this increased distance from the airport, the project would reduce the contribution of aircraft noise to

school children and faculty attending Murray Middle School. Therefore, the project would have a beneficial

impact as it relates to noise associated with airport operations, and no impact would occur. No mitigation is

required.

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or

working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

No Impact. Ridgecrest Community Hospital Heliport and Southern California Edison Ridgecrest Service

Center Heliport are approximately 0.5 miles northwest and 1.4 miles south of the project site, respectively

(AirNav, Google-Earth 2015). However, operations at these heliports are sporadic and would not generate

substantial amounts of noise to users in the project area.

Besides these private heliports, the nearest private airport is Armitage Field at the Naval Air Weapons Station-

China Lake. Aircraft overflights from Armitage Field are sporadically heard, but do not cause a substantial

noise impact in the vicinity of the existing or proposed project sites. The project would relocate the middle

school from its current location to the new school campus site, both of which are approximately the same

distance from Armitage Field (i.e., approximately 3.4 miles, per AirNav and Google-Earth 2015). Thus, there

would be effectively no change to aircraft noise exposure from operations at this military airport. No impact

would occur and no mitigation is required.

3.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING

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

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

infrastructure)?

Less Than Significant Impact. Population growth is typically related to the development of new residential

uses and employment opportunities. The proposed project would not induce population growth in the

project area, nor would it create the need for additional housing. The project involves the construction of

new school facilities to relocate Murray Middle School outside of the fenced area of China Lake. The new

school would have a capacity of 896 seats, similar to the existing campus. Its operation would not attract



Page 118 PlaceWorks

growth to the area or region, but accommodate the existing demand. Construction of the new school and

demolition of the existing school, however, would generate a small number of temporary construction jobs.

Because the unemployment rate in Kern County in December 2014 was estimated as 9.9 percent by the state

(EDD 2014), it is likely that construction employment would be absorbed from the existing labor force rather

than attracting new workers into the region. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no

mitigation is needed.

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

housing elsewhere?

No Impact. The proposed school site and existing campus site do not currently contain any residences or

housing units; project development would not require construction of replacement housing. No impact

would occur, and no mitigation measures are necessary.

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

elsewhere?

No Impact. There are no residents on the proposed or existing school sites, and the project would not

require construction of replacement housing. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.

3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES

Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or

physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the

construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service

ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

a) Fire protection?

Less Than Significant Impact. Because the existing Murray Middle School is within the fenced perimeters

of China Lake, fire protection and emergency medical services are currently provided by the China Lake

Federal Fire Department (CLFD). With the proposed relocation of the campus to outside the station’s fenced

area, fire and emergency protection services would instead be provided by the Kern County Fire Department

(KCFD). KCFD’s closest fire station to the proposed new school site is Fire Station 74 at 139 East Las Flores

Road, approximately 0.3 mile south of the new site. While Fire Station 74 would be the primary responder to

the new school site in the event of an emergency,9 the KCFD has a mutual aid agreement with CLFD, and

CLFD would provide assistance in the event of an emergency exceeding what KCFD could handle. Although

the proposed project would not increase enrollment at Murray Middle School, placement of the new facility

outside the fenced station perimeter would require a new agency to provide the service. According to the

KCFD, the existing fire protection facilities would be able to serve the new school facility, and with the naval

station less than one-half mile from the new school site and the CLFD mutual aid agreement, the proposed

project would not generate a need for a new fire station or expansion of the existing one. Demolition of the

9 KCFD operates a second fire station in Ridgecrest—Station 77 at 815 West Dolphin Avenue, about 2.6 miles southwest of the project site.



July 2015 Page 119

existing school, like construction of the proposed school, would create a very slight short-term increase in

potential demands for emergency medical services. Considering the existing KCFD and CLFD firefighting

resources in the region, the short-term demolition activities would not create a need for a new fire station

either. The proposed project would result in no significant impacts to fire protection services, and no

mitigation is required.

b) Police protection?

Less Than Significant Impact. Police protection services at the existing Murray Middle School campus are

currently provided by the China Lake Police Department. With the proposed relocation of the program to a

site outside of the fenced station perimeter, law enforcement services would be transitioned to the City of

Ridgecrest Police Department at 100 West California Avenue, which is approximately 1.5 miles southwest of

the project site. The Ridgecrest Police Department provides police protection services to other District

schools outside the station and would be able to handle the additional services required by the new school.

Construction of the new school facility and demolition of the existing campus would not be substantial and

would not create a need for increased police protection services that could necessitate the expansion of

existing or construction of new police facilities. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is

required.

c) Schools?

No Impact. School service needs are usually related to residential population. The project would not increase

population and would therefore not increase the demand for schools. However, the relocation of the existing

Murray Middle School would have beneficial impacts on school services and facilities, because physical access

to the campus would be improved, and the new facilities would be an improvement over existing facilities. No

impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required.

d) Parks?

No Impact. Increases in demands for park facilities are generally caused by population increases, which in

turn result from new development of residential and job-generating land uses. The new middle school facility

would not result in the development of new residential or job-generating land uses that would create a

demand for park facilities. Additionally, project students would not be required to use off-campus recreational

facilities. The proposed campus would include recreational facilities that would be available during normal

school hours, as well as to the public under the Civic Center Act when not used by the school, District, or

DOD. Overall, the proposed project would have a beneficial impact on park facilities. No impact would


e) Other public facilities?

No Impact. The proposed project is the reconstruction of an existing public school on a new site.

Operation of the project would be similar to existing conditions and would not result in adverse physical

impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered facilities to maintain acceptable service

ratios for any public service. No new or altered government facilities would be required. Demolition of the



Page 120 PlaceWorks

existing campus would have no impact on other public facilities, including libraries. The proposed project

would have no impact, and no mitigation is required.

3.15 RECREATION

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

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

be accelerated?

No Impact. The proposed project would include athletic facilities consisting of a track and field, a ball field,

and hardcourts. These facilities would be available for use during school operations and would also be

available for community use pursuant to the Civic Center Act when not used by the school, District, or DOD.

The project would not require students to use offsite parks or recreational facilities, including Leroy Jackson

Park Sports Complex, which is the closest park to the new school site. Athletic facilities on the existing

campus that would be demolished would be replaced by facilities at the rebuilt school. No adverse impact

would occur, and no mitigation measures are necessary.

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of

recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

No Impact. The proposed project would not result in population growth, necessitating the construction of

offsite recreational facilities. The project would result in the reconstruction of recreational facilities and

structures in the place of facilities at the existing Murray Middle School campus. The environmental effects

associated with the construction of these facilities are examined throughout this document. After

implementation of the mitigation measures identified in this document, construction of proposed

recreational facilities would not have significant adverse physical effects on the environment. Demolition of

the existing school would not require construction of new or expanded recreational facilities. No additional

impact would occur, and no additional mitigation measures are necessary.

3.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC

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

the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation

including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation

system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian

and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

Less Than Significant Impact. This analysis has been prepared to determine potential traffic impacts from

construction and operation of the new Murray Middle School campus. The following describes the

circulation network in the vicinity of the new school site, estimates project-related trips with foreseeable

cumulative projects in the study area, calculates intersection levels of service (LOS), and evaluates potential

traffic impacts related to the operation of the new school site combined with ambient growth and cumulative

projects.



July 2015 Page 121

Existing Conditions

Study area roadways and intersections are shown on Figure 18, Existing Circulation Network and Lane

Configurations. The following describes the study area roadways and intersections.

Roadways

Drummond Avenue is a four-lane, east-west street that abuts the south side of the school site. It is classified

as an arterial roadway in the City of Ridgecrest General Plan. Vehicular access to school, and student drop-

off and pick-up area would be provided by a one-way loop driveway off Drummond Avenue. The speed limit

on Drummond Avenue is 35 miles per hour (mph) east of China Lake Boulevard, which is the segment that

runs adjacent to the school site, and 40 mph west of China Lake Boulevard.

Knox Avenue is a four-lane roadway that abuts the east side of the school site. It runs between the proposed

middle school site and the existing Burroughs High School campus. A bus drop-off area and a service area

driveway would be provided on Knox Avenue. Knox Avenue is a north-south roadway in the immediate

vicinity of the project site. It continues south of the school site as French Avenue, curving in a westerly

direction and becoming an east-west roadway. Knox Avenue is classified as a collector/local road; French

Avenue is classified as a secondary road between the school site and China Lake Boulevard and as a

collector/local road west of China Lake Boulevard. The speed limit on French Avenue is 40 mph between

the school site and China Lake Boulevard and 25 mph west of China Lake Boulevard.

China Lake Boulevard/US 395 (Business) is a four-lane, north-south roadway located approximately one-

half mile west of the school site. It is classified as a state highway north of Ridgecrest Boulevard and as an

arterial roadway south of Ridgecrest Boulevard. It is designated as State Highway 178 north of Ridgecrest

Boulevard and as US 395 (Business) throughout the study area. The speed limit on China Lake Boulevard is

35 mph.

Las Flores Avenue is a four-lane, east-west street located approximately one-half mile south of the school

site. It is classified as a secondary road west of China Lake Boulevard and as a collector/local road east of

China Lake Boulevard. The speed limit on Las Flores Avenue is 35 mph east of China Lake Boulevard and 40

mph west of China Lake Boulevard.

Ridgecrest Boulevard is a two- to four-lane east-west street located approximately one mile south of the

school site. It has two lanes west of China Lake Boulevard and four lanes east of China Lake Boulevard. It is

classified as an arterial road west of China Lake Boulevard and as a state highway east of China Lake

Boulevard (State Highway 178). The speed limit on Ridgecrest Boulevard is 40 mph east of China Lake

Boulevard and 25 mph west of China Lake Boulevard.

Intersections

Six intersections were analyzed and are described in Table 18. As shown, the study area intersections are

under Caltrans and City of Ridgecrest jurisdictions.



Page 122 PlaceWorks

Existing Traffic Volumes

Manual traffic counts were taken at the study area intersections when school was in session, during the

morning peak period from 7 to 9 AM. The one-hour interval of peak traffic flow within the two-hour

monitoring period was identified for each intersection for the morning peak hour. Only the morning peak

hour is addressed because the school would not typically impact the late afternoon commuter peak period.

The school-generated traffic at the beginning of the school day would coincide with the morning commuter

peak hour, which has been evaluated in this study. The school traffic at the end of the school day would,

however, occur during the early afternoon generally between 2 and 3 PM when traffic volumes on the study

area roadways are lower. The school would not typically have an impact on the late afternoon commuter peak

hour, which occurs generally from 5 to 6 PM. The afternoon peak hour has not, therefore, been evaluated in

detail.

Intersection Operations

Roadway capacity is generally limited by the ability to move vehicles through intersections. An LOS is a

standard performance measurement to describe the operating characteristics of a street system in terms of

the level of congestion or delay experienced by motorists. Service levels range from A through F, which relate

to traffic conditions from best (uncongested, free-flowing conditions) to worst (total breakdown with stop-

and-go operation). The methodology used to assess the operation of a signalized intersection is based on the

Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The intersection LOS analysis is based on the traffic volumes observed

during peak hour conditions. The peak hours selected for analysis are the highest volumes that occur in four

consecutive 15-minute periods from 7 to 9 AM on weekdays. Per the HCM methodology, overall average

intersection delay at signalized intersections was calculated, and the worst-case approach delay was calculated

at unsignalized intersections. The level of service corresponds to the delay calculated. Table 19, Relationship

Between Delay Values and Levels of Service, describes the level of service concept and the operating conditions

expected under each level of service for signalized and unsignalized intersections.

Table 18 Study Area Intersections Traffic Controls and Jurisdictions Intersection Traffic Control Jurisdiction

Signalized Intersections

Knox Avenue/Drummond Avenue Traffic Signal City of Ridgecrest

China Lake Boulevard/Drummond Avenue Traffic Signal Caltrans

China Lake Boulevard/Las Flores Avenue Traffic Signal Caltrans

China Lake Boulevard/French Avenue Traffic Signal Caltrans

China Lake Boulevard/Ridgecrest Boulevard

Traffic Signal Caltrans

Unsignalized Intersection

French Avenue/Las Flores Avenue Cross-Street Stop City of Ridgecrest



July 2015 Page 123

Table 19 Relationship Between Delay Values and Levels of Service

Level of Service

Delay Value (seconds per vehicle)

Unsignalized Intersections Unsignalized Intersections

A 0.0 to 10.0 0.0 to 10.0

B > 10.0 to 20.0 > 10.0 to 15.0

C > 20.0 to 35.0 > 15.0 to 25.0

D > 35.0 to 55.0 > 25.0 to 35.0

E > 55.0 to 80.0 > 35.0 to 50.0

F > 80.0 > 50.0

Source: HCM 2010.

Existing traffic conditions at study area intersections were analyzed to determine their operating conditions

during the morning peak hour. Based on the peak hour traffic volumes, the turning movement counts, and

the existing number of lanes at each intersection, the average vehicle delay values at the six intersections in

the study area were calculated, and the corresponding LOS were determined at each intersection. The

software Synchro Version 9 was used to determine the LOS at the study area intersections. The 2000

Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2000) intersection methodology presents LOS in terms of control delay (in

seconds per vehicle). Table 20, Existing Conditions Intersection Levels of Service, indicates that five of the study

area intersections currently operate at LOS B and one intersection operates at LOS C during the morning

peak hour. According to City of Ridgecrest and Caltrans criteria, LOS C is considered acceptable for

intersection operations. Therefore, no intersections currently operate at unacceptable LOS.

Table 20 Existing Conditions Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Delay, seconds Level of Service


Knox Avenue/Drummond Avenue 16.8 B

China Lake Boulevard/Drummond Avenue 22.0 C

China Lake Boulevard/Las Flores Avenue 16.0 C

China Lake Boulevard/French Avenue 20.2 C

China Lake Boulevard/Ridgecrest Boulevard 27.6 C

Unsignalized Intersections

French Avenue/Las Flores Avenue 16.0 C

Notes: Intersection turn movement volumes and LOS calculation worksheets included in Appendix J.

Transit Service

The City of Ridgecrest operates four Ridgerunner Transit bus routes in the project area. The Roadrunner L2

line runs along Drummond Avenue and French Avenue, immediately adjacent to the proposed school site

and along parts of China Lake Boulevard and Ridgecrest Boulevard. The Coyote L1 line runs along China

Lake Boulevard south of Ridgecrest Boulevard and along Ridgecrest Boulevard east of China Lake

Boulevard. The Rattlesnake L3 line runs along China Lake Boulevard and on Drummond Avenue, Las Flores

Avenue, French Avenue, and Ridgecrest Boulevard west of China Lake Boulevard. The Joshua Tree L4 line



Page 124 PlaceWorks

runs along China Lake Boulevard near the project site, extending to the Community of Inyokern in

unincorporated Kern County to the west.

Bicycle Facilities

Class 2 (striped and signed on-road) bike lanes currently exist on both sides of the road on the segments of

Drummond Avenue between Knox Avenue and China Lake Boulevard, on French Avenue from Drummond

Avenue to China Lake Boulevard; and on North China Lake Boulevard (SR-178). No bike lanes currently

exist on the segment of French Avenue adjacent to the project site north of Drummond Avenue.

Pedestrian Facilities

There are sidewalks on both sides of all roadways described above, except for Knox Avenue north of

Drummond Avenue. Marked crosswalks with push button detectors and pedestrian crossing signals are

already in place at the intersection of Drummond Avenue and French Avenue.

Future Baseline 2017 Traffic Conditions

Ambient growth has been added to traffic volumes on surrounding roadways in addition to traffic generated

by the development of future projects that have been approved, but not yet built and/or for which

development applications have been filed and are under consideration by governing agencies. This ambient

growth rate is added to existing traffic volumes to account for area-wide growth not reflected by cumulative

development projects. The future baseline traffic conditions without the proposed school were estimated for

the near-term year of 2017 by considering the effects of general ambient regional growth and the cumulative

increase in traffic volumes that would be generated by other development projects proposed in the area. The

year 2017 was used as the future analysis year because that is anticipated to be the first year of occupancy for

the proposed school. Future year traffic forecasts for 2017 traffic conditions have been based upon five years

of ambient growth at 1 percent per year, which results in a total growth of 5.1 percent.



July 2015 Page 125

Figure 18 Existing Circulation Network and Lane Configurations



Page 126 PlaceWorks




July 2015 Page 127

A list of cumulative projects anticipated to contribute traffic to any study area facility by project opening year

2017 was developed based on a review of the City of Ridgecrest’s Tract/Housing Units Status Report. The

list consists of cumulative projects that are reasonably and foreseeably anticipated to be constructed and

operational by 2017. The cumulative volumes of traffic that would be generated by seven projects anticipated

to be constructed and operational by 2017 are summarized in Table 21, Cumulative Projects.

Table 21 Cumulative Projects

Project Location Units

Trips

Daily AM Peak Hour

Tract 6912 Brianna and Del Rosa 23 220 17

Tract 6992 NE Corner Richmond & Upjohn 24 230 18

Tract 7112 NW Corner Kendall & S. Norma 51 490 38

Tract 7184 NE Corner China Lake & E. Dolphin 21 200 16

Tract 6731 N of NW Corner Kendall & S. Norma 120 1,150 90

Tract 6691 NW Corner of Mahan & Ridgecrest Bl 223 2,130 167

Tract 7188 NW Corner of Mahan & Drummond 40 380 30

Total 502 4,800 376

Note: The daily trip generation rate for single-family detached residences in Trip Generation (9th ed.) is 9.52, about 0.5 percent less than the trip generation estimate used in this table. The AM peak hour generation rate in Trip Generation is 0.75, the same rate used in this table.

The cumulative development projects assumed in this traffic analysis are estimated to generate 4,800 trip-ends

per day during a typical weekday, with approximately 376 vehicle trips during the AM peak hour. The volumes

of traffic that would be generated by the other proposed development projects were distributed onto the

study area roadway network to quantify the cumulative impacts of these projects.

To assess future background traffic conditions at the time of project opening year, existing traffic was

combined with the anticipated ambient growth and the traffic from cumulative developments anticipated to

operate in 2017. The intersection operations for the 2017 No Project traffic conditions have been calculated

and are given in Table 22, Intersection Delay and LOS, 2017 No Project Conditions.

As shown on Table 22, all intersections would operate at acceptable LOS during the morning peak hour for

the year 2017 scenario without the proposed project.

Table 22 Intersection Levels of Service, 2017 Without-Project Conditions Intersection Delay, seconds Level of Service


Knox Avenue/Drummond Avenue 17.5 B

China Lake Boulevard/Drummond Avenue 21.2 C

China Lake Boulevard/Las Flores Avenue 19.0 B

China Lake Boulevard/French Avenue 21.8 C

China Lake Boulevard/Ridgecrest Boulevard 28.9 C


French Avenue/Las Flores Avenue 16.4 C

Notes: Intersection turn movement volumes and LOS calculations included in Appendix J.



Page 128 PlaceWorks

Project-Generated Traffic

The project would have a capacity of 896 students. The trip generation was calculated based on rates in the

ITE Trip Generation Manual (9th ed.) for Land Use 522, Middle/Junior High School. Table 23, Project Trip

Generation, shows the trip generation rates and project trip generation for the AM and PM peak hours and

daily trips.

Table 23 Project-Generated Traffic AM Peak Hour PM student dismissal PM Peak Hour2 Daily

Trip Generation per Student1 0.54 0.30 0.16 1.62

Trips 484 269 143 1,610 1 Trip generation rates provided by the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th edition. 2 Peak hour of the adjacent streets, during 4 to 6 PM.

Table 23 shows that the school would generate an estimated 484 vehicle trips during the morning peak hour,

269 during the afternoon student dismissal hour, 143 trips during the afternoon traffic peak hour, and 1,610

trips per day. It should be noted that the traffic impact analysis assumes that all these trips are new to the

street network, which is a conservative assessment because some of this traffic already exists from the

existing Murray Middle School site.

To quantify the increase in traffic at each intersection resulting from the proposed project, the traffic that

would be generated by the school during the morning peak hour was geographically distributed onto the

roadway network based on the anticipated student boundaries and the observed traffic patterns on the study

area roadway network. It should be noted that the student drop-off exit loop is restricted to prohibit

southbound left turns (right-turn out only). The trip distribution percentages are applied to the project trip

generation to determine the traffic volumes forecast to be added at each intersection (i.e., trip assignment).

Existing plus Project Conditions

To assess Existing plus Project traffic conditions, existing traffic is combined with project traffic. The

intersection operations for the Existing plus Project traffic conditions have been calculated and are shown in

Table 24, Intersection Delay and LOS, Existing plus Project Conditions. According to the City of Ridgecrest and

Caltrans standards, an intersection would be significantly impacted if the project would result in a change in

the level of service from an acceptable LOS A, B, or C to an unacceptable LOS D, E, or F. Table 24 shows

the existing traffic conditions, the traffic conditions with the addition of the school traffic, and the increase in

the delay values associated with the project. Table 24 indicates that all study area intersections would continue

to operate at an acceptable LOS, and none of the study area intersections would be significantly impacted by

the proposed school project according to the City of Ridgecrest and Caltrans significance criteria. Traffic

impacts under existing conditions would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.



July 2015 Page 129

Table 24 Intersection Levels of Service, Existing plus Project Conditions

Intersection

Existing Conditions Existing plus Project Conditions

Delay, Seconds LOS Delay, Seconds LOS


Knox Avenue/Drummond Avenue 17.5 B 19.9 B

China Lake Blvd/Drummond Avenue 21.2 C 23.6 C

China Lake Blvd/Las Flores Avenue 19.0 B 17.4 B

China Lake Blvd/French Avenue 21.8 C 20.1 C

China Lake Blvd/Ridgecrest Blvd 28.9 C 27.7 C


French Avenue/Las Flores Avenue 16.4 C 18.5 C

Notes: Intersection turn movement volumes and LOS worksheets are included in Appendix J.

2017 plus Project Conditions

Traffic Volumes

Project-generated traffic volumes were added to 2017 without-project traffic volumes to forecast 2017 with-

project traffic volumes. The comparative delay values and levels of service for the year 2017 analysis scenario

are shown in Table 25, Intersection Levels of Service, 2017 plus Project Conditions. As shown, all intersections would

operate at acceptable LOS B or C, and none of the study area intersections would be significantly impacted

by the proposed school project. Traffic impacts in 2017 when the school is projected to open would be less

than significant. No mitigation measures are required.

Table 25 Intersection Levels of Service, 2017 plus Project Conditions

Intersection

2017 No Project Conditions 2017 plus Project Conditions

Delay, Seconds LOS Delay, Seconds LOS


Knox Avenue/Drummond Avenue 17.5 B 20.7 C

China Lake Blvd/Drummond Avenue 21.2 C 23.6 C

China Lake Blvd/Las Flores Avenue 19.0 B 15.5 B

China Lake Blvd/French Avenue 21.8 C 22.8 C

China Lake Blvd/Ridgecrest Blvd 28.9 C 33.7 C


French Avenue/Las Flores Avenue 16.4 C 19.6 C

Notes: Intersection LOS worksheets included in Appendix J.



Page 130 PlaceWorks

Construction Traffic Impacts

Construction of the proposed new school and demolition of the existing school would generate various

levels of truck and automobile traffic throughout the duration of the construction period. At the proposed

new school site (and as a worst case scenario, as compared to demolition of the existing campus), the

construction-related traffic includes construction workers traveling to and from the site as well as trucks

hauling construction materials to the site and excavation material away from the site. The construction phase

that would generate the greatest number of truck trips would be the soil haul phase for soil remediation,

which would generate approximately 100 truck trips per day. Other construction phases would not exceed 22

trips per day in average. The construction truck trips would be spread out throughout the workday, averaging

approximately 12 trips per hour during the soil haul phase. This level of construction-related traffic would

not result in a significant traffic impact on the study area street network because it would be minor compared

to the volumes of traffic that are already on the street network. No significant impacts would occur during

construction activities at the existing campus or the proposed new campus. No mitigation measures would be

required.

b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level

of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county

congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

Less Than Significant Impact. The Congestion Management Program (CMP) for Kern County is

administered by the Kern Council of Governments, which serves as the congestion management agency. The

CMP, included in the Kern County Regional Transportation Plan, indicates that the CMP roadways nearest to

the project site are China Lake Boulevard and Ridgecrest Boulevard (State Route 178). According to the CMP,

LOS E is the minimum LOS standard for the roadways on the Kern County CMP network. As detailed in

response a), the study area intersections along the CMP roadways would continue to operate at LOS B and C

for the “with-project” scenarios, which is better than the minimum CMP standard of LOS E. The proposed

project would not, therefore, exceed a level of service standard established by the county congestion

management agency for designated roads or highways, and the project’s impacts on the CMP roadways would

be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change

in location that results in substantial safety risks?

No Impact. The project would not change air traffic levels. The nearest airfield to the site is Armitage

Airfield, three miles to the north of the new school site and 2.4 miles northwest of the existing campus. All

proposed buildings would be one story—the gymnasium would be about 30 feet high and the remaining

buildings would each be about 20 feet high. Therefore, the project would not change air traffic patterns. No

impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.



July 2015 Page 131

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous

intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

No Impact. The project would include a circular one-way driveway off Drummond Avenue dedicated for

student drop-off and pickup, one circular one-way bus drop-off driveway on Knox Avenue, and a service

entrance on Knox Avenue on the northeast corner of the site. There would be sufficient separation between

the driveways dedicated for private autos and school buses. In addition, pedestrian pathways would be

separated from the main access driveways, and none of the pedestrians pathways would cross a driveway. At

the student drop-off driveway, there would be a separation of approximately 400 feet from the entrance to

the exit on Drummond Avenue. No left turns out would be allowed at that driveway, minimizing merging

conflicts on Drummond Avenue. The segment on Drummond Avenue is flat, providing clear line of sight for

cars exiting the student drop-off driveway. The project would not add incompatible uses to area roadways.

Therefore, there would be no impact. No mitigation is required.

e) Result in inadequate emergency access?

No Impact. In addition to the site access driveways described in Section 3.16.d, the new school site plan

includes two fire lanes: one extending from near Knox Avenue near the northeast corner of the campus

across the northern part of the campus to the track, and the second extending north from the loop driveway,

passing next to the west end of the D buildings. The project site plan includes emergency access compliant

with California Fire Code and CDE standards. No adverse impact would occur, and no mitigation is needed.

f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian

facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

No Impact. The new school site is served by bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and transit. Project development would

not interfere with the bicycle lanes, sidewalks near the project site, and the operation of Ridgerunner transit

bus service. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is needed.

g) Result in inadequate parking capacity?

No Impact. The new school’s main parking lot of 87 stalls would be east of the driveway, with access from

the driveway; a motorized arm gate would separate 8 visitor stalls from the remaining 79 stalls. Four ADA

parking spaces would also be provided at the northeast corner of the campus from a separate driveway along

Knox Road. A total of 91 off-street parking spaces would be provided. The City of Ridgecrest’s requirement

for off-street parking for elementary and junior high schools is: One space for each teacher, administrator and

custodian, plus sufficient space for safe and convenient bus loading and unloading of students (Municipal

Code §§ 20-20.5). School operation is estimated to employ 60 to 65 faculty, administrators, and other staff. A

bus drop-off lane would be built next to Knox Avenue. The project would accommodate the parking demand

for all employees and provide a cushion for vendors and parents that would occasionally park. The project

would meet City of Ridgecrest requirement for off-street parking for a middle school, and no adverse impact

would occur. No mitigation is required.



Page 132 PlaceWorks

3.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

a) Exceed waste water treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control

Board?

Less Than Significant Impact. The China Lake Environmental Management Office enforces federal, state,

and local environmental regulations on the station. During construction of the proposed project, the

District’s construction contractor would be required to obtain an NPDES General Construction Permit from

the SWRCB, which would outline wastewater discharge requirements and BMPs, and would require

preparation of a SWPPP. The SWPPP will include BMPs for minimizing water pollution and the project’s

effluent quality criteria would be specified, as determined by the SWRCB, based on receiving water guidelines

and waste load allocations. The District’s construction contractor will be required to comply with the effluent

quality criteria specified within the NPDES General Construction Permit for the construction activities

associated with the new school site and demolition activities associated with the existing campus. Impacts

from the proposed project would therefore have no significant impact on wastewater treatment requirements,

and no mitigation is required.

b) Require or result in the construction of new water or waste water treatment facilities or

expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental

effects?

No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new

water or wastewater treatment facilities or the expansion of existing facilities.

Water Treatment

Water treatment facilities filter and/or disinfect water before it is delivered to customers. The Indian Wells

Valley Water District (IWVWD) supplies water to the existing school and to the proposed school site. All of

the IWVWD’s water supplies are groundwater from the Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Basin. Wells 9A, 10,

11, and 13 produce water containing arsenic at levels exceeding the maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10

parts per billion (ppb). Two arsenic removal facilities were completed in August 2011 in order to remove

arsenic from wells 9A, 10, 11, and 13. With treatment, water entering the IWVWD’s distribution system from

these wells will be below the 10 ppb MCL for arsenic. (Krieger & Stewart 2011; IWVWD 2012). In

December 2013 the IWVWD circulated an Initial Study/MND for a proposed sludge-drying bed next to

Treatment Plant No. 2 that would dry iron/arsenic residue (inert sludge) from both treatment plants; the dry

sludge would be disposed of offsite (Krieger & Stewart 2013). The project would not expand enrollment at

Murray Middle School and thus would not increase water use. Thus, the project would not require new or

expanded water treatment facilities. Demolition of the existing campus would not require construction of

new or expanded water treatment facilities. No impact would occur.

Wastewater Treatment

Wastewater treatment for the existing school and the proposed school site is provided by the City of

Ridgecrest at its Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (RWTP) on the base. The RWTP has capacity of 3.6



July 2015 Page 133

million gallons per day (mgd); wastewater flows through the plant in 2010 were 2,936 acre-feet per year, or

2.62 mgd (Krieger & Stewart 2011). The project would not expand enrollment at Murray Middle School and

thus would not increase wastewater generation at the school. Demolition of the existing school would not

generate wastewater and would not impact wastewater treatment capacity. Therefore, the project would not

require new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities. No impact would occur.

c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of

existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

Less Than Significant Impact. The area of the new school site currently consists almost entirely of

pervious surface; there are a few roads in poor condition in the north half of the site remaining from

previous residential development onsite and remnants of a former substation. The project would include the

development of nine retention basins onsite to detain and infiltrate runoff from a 10-year, 5-day storm (see

Section 3.9.c, Table 11, and Figure 17, Proposed Hydrology Map). All drainage from a 10-year, 5-day storm in

postproject conditions would be contained and infiltrated into soil by the proposed retention basins, and the

project would not discharge runoff from such a storm offsite. Thus, the project would not require

construction of new or expanded offsite stormwater drainage facilities. The environmental effects associated

with the construction of onsite retention basins are examined throughout this document. Development of

any necessary onsite stormwater drainage improvements would be required to comply with the NPDES

regulations and applicable naval environmental policies. Compliance with the policies of the NPDES General

Construction Permit and all other applicable regional policies would ensure that construction of any new

stormwater facility improvements would not result in adverse impacts. Demolition of the existing campus

would reduce impervious surfaces, and thus runoff, from that site. The proposed project would have no

significant impact on stormwater drainage facilities, and no mitigation is required.

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and

resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

No Impact. The IWVWD would supply water to the project. The project would not expand enrollment of

Murray Middle School and therefore would not increase water demand by the school. In addition, the District

would comply with local, regional, and state water conservation policies and would follow standard BMPs,

including Title 22 regulations, in order to reduce water consumption. The IWVWD forecasts that it will have

adequate water supplies to meet water demands in its service area through the 2015–2035 period (Krieger &

Stewart 2011). The proposed project would result in no need for new or expanded entitlements. Demolition

of the existing school would create a brief need for a small amount of water for uses such as dust control,

but not enough to impact IWVWD water supplies. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.

e) Result in a determination by the waste water treatment provider, which serves or may serve the

project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the

provider’s existing commitments?

No Impact. No impact to wastewater treatment capacity would occur, as substantiated above in Section

3.17.b.



Page 134 PlaceWorks

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

waste disposal needs?

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would be served by landfills with sufficient permitted

capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs, as supported below.

Operation

The project would not expand enrollment of the school and thus would not increase operational solid waste

generation from the school. Waste associated with project operations would continue to be brought to the

Indian Wells Valley, Ridgecrest Recycling and Sanitary Landfill operated by Kern County Waste Management

Department, which currently serves the existing Murray campus. This landfill has permitted throughput of

701 tons per day; remaining capacity of 5,037,428 cubic yards, or about 3,778,000 tons; average daily disposal

in 2011 of about 173.4 tons;10 and an estimated closing date of 2045 (CalRecycle 2015a, 2015b). No impact

would occur related to the disposal of the project’s operational waste.

Demolition and Construction

The project would generate demolition debris from demolition of the existing middle school and

construction waste and debris from construction of the new facility. Requirements for disposal, recycling, and

reuse of nonhazardous and hazardous construction and demolition debris from the new and existing schools

are set forth in the Record of Categorical Exclusion for Construction of a New Middle School, and Record

of Categorical Exclusion for Demolition of Murray Middle School, included as Appendices A.1 and A.2 to

this Initial Study. Ridgecrest Recycling and Sanitary Landfill accepts construction and demolition debris and

includes a green waste composting facility. The project would comply with naval environmental policy. As a

result, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are necessary.

Contaminated Soil

In addition to demolition and construction debris, the project would require remediation of contaminated

soil at the new school site, which may involve removal and offsite disposal of up to approximately 20,077

cubic yards of soil (see Section 3.8.d for further description). Contaminated soil would be disposed of at one

or both of the following landfills in the Antelope Valley in northern Los Angeles County:

The Lancaster Landfill and Recycling Center in the City of Lancaster is about 83 miles south-southwest

of the project site. The Lancaster Landfill and Recycling Center has permitted throughput of 5,100 tons

per day; remaining capacity of 14,514,648 cubic yards, or about 10,900,000 tons; average daily disposal in

2013 of about 402 tons per day; and an estimated closing date of 2044 (CalRecycle 2015b, CalRecycle

2015c).11,12

10 Total of 48,480 tons disposed in 2011 divided by 350 days; the landfill is open 7 days per week. 11 The Lancaster Landfill and Recycling Center consists of two units: Unit 1, the solid waste landfill described above; and Unit 2, a greenwaste composting facility irrelevant to the proposed disposal of contaminated soil. 12 Total of 100,544 tons disposed in 2013 divided by 250 days; the Lancaster Landfill and Recycling Center is open five days per week.



July 2015 Page 135

The Antelope Valley Public Landfill in the City of Palmdale is about 95 miles south-southwest of the

project site. The Antelope Valley Public Landfill has permitted throughput of 3,564 tons per day;

remaining capacity of 20,400,000 cubic yards or 15,300,000 tons; average daily disposal of about 2,328

tons per day; and an estimated closing date of 2042 (CalRecycle 2015b, CalRecycle 2015d).

The Lancaster Landfill and Recycling Center and Antelope Valley Public Landfill have sufficient capacity—

separately or combined—for the proposed disposal of contaminated soil, and impacts of such disposal on

landfill capacity would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary.

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

Less Than Significant Impact. During construction and operation of the proposed project and demolition

of the existing campus, the District would comply with applicable military, county, and state solid waste

diversion, reduction, and recycling mandates. China Lake adheres to applicable federal, state, and county

environmental regulations. As a lessee of the project site, the District would also comply with Assembly Bill

939 (AB 939), the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, which requires source reduction, reuse,

recycling, and composting programs to reduce tonnage of solid waste going to landfills by 50 percent.

Assembly Bill 1826 (California Public Resources Code §§ 42649.8 et seq.), signed into law in September 2014,

requires recycling of organic matter by businesses, and multifamily residences of five of more units,

generating such wastes in amounts over certain thresholds. The law takes effect in 2016. The proposed school

would include a storage area for recyclable organic matter in compliance with AB 1826.

The District would make every reasonable effort to reuse and/or recycle the construction debris that would

otherwise be taken to a landfill and would also dispose of hazardous wastes, including paint used during

construction, only at facilities permitted to receive them, and in accordance with local, state, and federal

regulations. The proposed project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local statues and

regulations related to solid waste disposal, and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures

are necessary.

3.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially

reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below

self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or

restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the

major periods of California history or prehistory?

Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Buried archaeological resources and fossils

could be present in site soils. The proposed project would have the potential to degrade the quality of the

environment if archeological or paleontological resources are accidentally damaged during construction

activities. Mitigation measures are included in this Initial Study to minimize impacts of project development

on such resources. Therefore, with the imposition of these measures, project implementation would not

eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory.



Page 136 PlaceWorks

Parts of the new school site support disturbed white bursage scrub habitat; the balance of the site consists of

disturbed habitats and developed areas. Project development could impact desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii):

the NEPA Categorical Exclusion concluded that desert tortoise could occur onsite, although the biological

technical report concluded that the species is not anticipated to occur onsite. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 is

included in this Initial Study to minimize impacts of project development on desert tortoise. Project

implementation would not otherwise reduce the habitat of fish and wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife

population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce

the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. Impacts to biological resources

from project implementation would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?

(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable

when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects,

and the effects of probable future projects.)

Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Project development would not have the

potential to have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. Where the proposed

project would have no impact, it would not contribute to cumulative impacts. In addition, issues specific to

site conditions, such as site geology and soils, do not have cumulative effects. The proposed project is not

growth inducing and would therefore not contribute to the cumulative effects of population growth. The

cumulative impacts due to hydrology and water quality, noise, and traffic would be reduced to less than

significant levels by adhering to local, regional, state, and federal regulations. Impacts related to air quality

would be reduced to acceptable standards with the imposition of Mitigation Measure AQ-1. No cumulatively

considerable impacts would result from the proposed project, and no mitigation measures are necessary.

c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on

human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The project would comply with all local,

state, and federal laws governing general welfare and environmental protection. The implementation of

required mitigation measures specified in this Initial Study would reduce impacts to less than significant.

Project impacts on human beings, either directly or indirectly, would be less than significant, and no additional

mitigation measures are necessary.

July 2015 Page 137

4. References

Airnav.com. 2015, January 26. Airport Information. http://www.airnav.com/airports/.

Alden Environmental. 2013, January 22. Biological Technical Report for the Town of Yucca Valley General

Plan Update.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2011, Revised. California Environmental Quality

Act Air Quality Guidelines.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2015, July 8. Introduction – West Mojave Plan.

http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/cdd/wemo_intro.html.California Department of Forestry and

Fire Prevention (CAL FIRE). 2007, November 7. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA:

Kern County. http://frap.fire.ca.gov/webdata/maps/kern/fhszs_map.15.pdf.

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2013. California Emissions Estimator

Model (CalEEMod). Version 2013.2.2. Prepared by: ENVIRON International Corporation and the

California Air Districts.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2014a, August 22. Area Designations Maps/State and National.

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

———. 2014b, May 15. Proposed First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the

Framework, http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm x.

———. 2013, October 23. Proposed 2013 Amendments to Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality

Standards. http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2013/area13/area13isor.pdf.

———. 2012, Status of Scoping Plan Recommended Measures,

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/status_of_scoping_plan_measures.pdf.

———. 2011, June 15. Eastern Kern Air Quality Management Plans.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/planarea/easternkern/easternkern.htm.

———. 2008, October. Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan, a Framework for Change.

California Department of Education (CDE). 2015, January 26. Dataquest.

http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/.


4. References

Page 138 PlaceWorks

California Department of Finance (CDF). 2014, May. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities,

Counties, and the State, January 2011- 2014.

http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-5/2011-20/view.php.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2013, August 14. California Species of Special

Concern. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/ssc/.

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2015a, January 28. Facility/Site

Summary Details: Ridgecrest Recycling and Sanitary Landfill.

http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/15-AA-0059/Detail/.

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2015b, January 28. Landfill

Tonnage Reports. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Landfills/Tonnages/.

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2015c, April 9. Facility/Site

Summary Details: Lancaster Landfill and Recycling Center. .


California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2015d, April 9. Facility/Site

Summary Details: Antelope Valley Public Landfill.


California Energy Commission (CEC). 2015, January 27. Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan: Draft

DRECP and EIR/EIS. http://www.drecp.org/draftdrecp/.

California Geological Survey (CGS). 1999. Mineral Land Classification of Southeastern Kern County. Open

File Report 99-15, Plate 2A. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/ofr/OFR_99-15/OFR_99-

15_Plate2A.pdf.

Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2015, January 26. EnviroStor.

http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.

Division of Land Resource Protection (DLRP). 2015, January 26. California Important Farmland Finder.

http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/ciff/ciff.html.

Division of Land Resource Protection (DLRP). 2013, November 19. Kern County Williamson Act FY

2013/2014 Sheet 3 of 3. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/Kern_e_13_14_WA.pdf.

Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District (EKAPCD). 2012a, August. EPA Determinations that Seven

Areas in California Have Attained the 1997 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard. EPA

Fact Sheet. http://www.kernair.org/Documents/Announcements/Attainment/Fact%20Sheet.pdf.

———. 2012b, July 12. Annual AB 2588 Air Toxics Report for 2011.


4. References

July 2015 Page 139

———. 2011. Rule 402 Fugitive Dust.

http://www.kernair.org/Rule%20Book/4%20Prohibitions/402_Fugitive_Dust.pdf.

———. 2007. Suggested Air Pollutant Mitigation Measures for Construction Sites for Kern County APCD.

———. 2000. Rule 210.1, New and Modified Source Review Rule.

———. 1996. Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of

1970, As Amended.

Employment Development Department (EDD). 2015, January 27. Report 400C: Monthly Labor Force Data

for Counties. http://www.calmis.ca.gov/file/lfmonth/countyur-400c.pdf

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2014. GIS flood hazard map layer.

Fox, Tim (Community Plans Liaison Officer). 2013, January 7. Phone call. NAWS China Lake.

———. 2012, December 12. Phone call. NAWS China Lake.

Google Earth. 2015, January 28.

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2008, June. Technical Advisory, CEQA and Climate

Change: Addressing Climate Change Through CEQA Review.

http://www.opr.ca.gov/ceqa/pdfs/june08-ceqa.pdf.

Kern Council of Governments (KCOG) 2014, June 19. 2014 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable

Communities Strategy. http://www.kerncog.org/images/docs/rtp/2014_RTP.pdf.

Krieger & Stewart, Incorporated. 2011, May. Indian Wells Valley Water District 2010 Urban Water

Management Plan. http://www.iwvwd.com/Newsletter/178-64P4-UWMP2010-

FINAL%2005182011.pdf.

———. 2013, December . Indian Wells Valley Water District Initial Study and Mitigated Negative

Declaration for Arsenic Treatment Facilities Sludge Drying Bed. http://www.iwvwd.com/wp-

content/uploads/2013/12/IS-Draft-MND-for-IWVWD-Arsenic-Tmt-Sludge-Dry-Bed-Dec-

2013.pdf.

Mielke, Chris, P.E., QSD. 2015, June 1. Hydrology Report for Murray Middle School.

Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake (NAWS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2005, May.

Comprehensive Land Use Management Plan (CLUMP) for Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake,

California. http://www.chinalakeleis.com/documents/china_lake_clump_may_2005.pdf.

NAWS China Lake Environmental Management Division. 2012, June. Integrated Cultural Resources

Management Plan for Naval Air Weapons Station, China Lake, Inyo, Kern, and San Bernardino


4. References

Page 140 PlaceWorks

Counties, California.

http://www.chinalakeleis.com/system/assets/38/original/nawscl_eis_leis_icrmp_oct2012.pdf.

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2012, June. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program

Risk Assessment Guidelines. Technical Support Document for Exposure Assessment and Stochastic

Analysis.

Office of Mine Reclamation (OMR). 2015, January 27. Mines Online.

http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mol/mol-app.html.

PlaceWorks. 2014, February. Geological and Environmental Hazards Report for: New Murray Middle School.

PlaceWorks. 2013, December 27. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, New Murray Middle School

(Northwest Corner E. French Drive and E. Drummond Avenue, Ridgecrest, California 93555).

PlaceWorks. 2013, February. Pipeline Safety Hazard Assessment for: New Murray Middle School.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2015, January 26. GeoTracker.

http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/default.asp.

US Geological Survey (USGS). 1953. Ridgecrest Quadrangle topographic map.

http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/img4/ht_icons/Browse/CA/CA_Ridgecrest_298771_1953_62500.jpg

US Geological Survey (USGS). 1973. Ridgecrest North quadrangle topographic map.

http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/img4/ht_icons/Browse/CA/CA_Ridgecrest%20North_101897_1973_2400

0.jpg

http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/default.asp

July 2015 Page 141

5. List of Preparers

LEAD AGENCY

Pamela Pence, Program Manager

PLACEWORKS

Barbara Heyman, Associate Principal / Project Manager

Ron Cavagrotti, Senior Scientist

Nicole Vermilion, Manager, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis

Bob Mantey, Manager, Noise, Vibration, and Acoustics

Fernando Sotelo, Transportation Planner

Michael Milroy, Associate

John Vang, J.D., Project Planner

Stephanie Chen, Planner, Air Quality/GHG and Transportation

Natalie Foley, Planner, Noise

Cary Nakama, Graphic Artist


5. List of Preparers

Page 142 PlaceWorks



Appendix

July 2015

Appendix A.1 Record of Categorical Exclusion for Lease of New School Site


Appendix

PlaceWorks



Appendix

July 2015

Appendix A.2 Record of Categorical Exclusion for the Demolition of Murray Middle School


Appendix

PlaceWorks

This page intentionally left blank


Appendix

July 2015

Appendix B Environmental Condition of Property Report


Appendix

PlaceWorks



Appendix

July 2015

Appendix C.1 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis


Appendix

PlaceWorks



Appendix

July 2015

Appendix C.2 Health Risk Assessment Technical Memorandum


Appendix

PlaceWorks



Appendix

July 2015

Appendix D Biological Technical Report


Appendix

PlaceWorks



Appendix

July 2015

Appendix E.1 Historic Resource Assessment


Appendix

PlaceWorks



Appendix

July 2015

Appendix E.2 Cultural Resources Records Search


Appendix

PlaceWorks



Appendix

July 2015

Appendix E.3 Paleontological Records Search


Appendix

PlaceWorks



Appendix

July 2015

Appendix F.1 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation and Geologic/Seismic Hazards Evaluation


Appendix

PlaceWorks



Appendix

July 2015

Appendix F.2 Fault Rupture Hazard Investigation Report


Appendix

PlaceWorks



Appendix

July 2015

Appendix F.3 Amendment to Geotechnical Engineering Investigation and Geologic/Seismic Hazards Evaluation


Appendix

PlaceWorks



Appendix

July 2015

Appendix F.4 Update, Geotechnical Engineering Investigation


Appendix

PlaceWorks



Appendix

July 2015

Appendix G.1 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment


Appendix

PlaceWorks



Appendix

July 2015

Appendix G.2 Preliminary Environmental Assessment Report, New Murray Middle School


Appendix

PlaceWorks



Appendix

July 2015

Appendix G.3 Remedial Action Workplan


Appendix

PlaceWorks



Appendix

July 2015

Appendix H Hydrology Study


Appendix

PlaceWorks

This page intentionally left blank


Appendix

July 2015

Appendix I Noise Analysis


Appendix

PlaceWorks



Appendix

July 2015

Appendix J Traffic Impact Analysis


Appendix

PlaceWorks
