Mandarin and English Dual-Language Immersion

Transcription

Mandarin and English Dual-Language Immersion Elementary School Project EIR
Los Angeles Unified School District
March 26, 2015
Volume II
Appendices
Mandarin and English Dual-Language
Immersion Elementary School Project
Volume II
Prepared for:
Office of Environmental Health and Safety
333 South Beaudry Avenue, 28th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017
Contact: Mr. Edward Paek, CEQA Project Manager
Prepared by:
Sapphos Environmental, Inc.
430 North Halstead Street
Pasadena, California 91107
Contact: Ms. Laura Male
March 26, 2015
APPENDIX A
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
APPENDIX A
JOHN E. DEASY, Ph.D.
ENRIQUE G. BOULL’T
Superintendent of Schools
Chief Operating Officer
YI HWA KIM
Interim Director, Environmental Health and Safety
DAVID PIPER
Interim Deputy Director, Environmental Health and Safety
of a Draft Environmental Impact Report
TO: Agencies, Organizations, Property Owners, and Interested Parties
SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Los Angeles Unified School District (District or LAUSD), as lead
agency for the project, will prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) to assess the
environmental effects of constructing and operating the proposed Mandarin and English Dual-Language
Immersion Elementary School Project at Mark Twain Middle School (proposed project) pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) [California Public Resources Code (PRC), Division 13,
Section 21000 et seq. (CEQA Statute) and the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14, Division 6,
Chapter 3, Section 15000 et seq. (CEQA Guidelines)]. The District is seeking input from responsible and
trustee agencies, other agencies required to receive this notice, the State Office of Planning and Research,
local residents, and other interested parties regarding the scope and content of the environmental
information to be included in the DEIR.
In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(d) and 15082, the District will not be preparing an
initial study and will begin work directly on the DEIR. The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments
regarding the content of the DEIR.
PROJECT TITLE: Mandarin and English Dual-Language Immersion Elementary School Project at Mark
Twain Middle School
PROJECT LOCATION: The proposed project site is the Mark Twain Middle School, located at 2224
Walgrove Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90066 in the communities of Venice and Mar Vista within the
City of Los Angeles. Mark Twain Middle School is situated at longitude -118.4º, latitude 34.0º in a
primarily residential neighborhood, bordered by Beethoven Street on the east, Lucille Avenue on the south,
Walgrove Avenue to the west, and Victoria Avenue to the north.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project includes, but is not limited to, a new classroom
building consisting of approximately 15 classrooms, a multi-purpose room, and administrative and support
spaces; new food services and lunch shelter facilities; designated elementary and kindergarten play areas;
designated student drop-off and parking areas; and modifications to approximately eight existing portable
classrooms. The proposed project design will conform with the requirements of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), Division of the State Architect (DSA), CEQA, Department of Toxic Substances
Control (DTSC), and any other required improvements or mitigations to ensure compliance with local, state,
333 South Beaudry Avenue, 28th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017  Telephone (213) 241-3199  Fax (213) 241-6816
The Office of Environmental Health and Safety is dedicated to providing a safe and healthy environment
for the students and employees of the Los Angeles Unified School District.
and/or federal facilities requirements; and furnishing and equipping with grade-appropriate desks, chairs,
and equipment.
The Mandarin and English Dual-Language Immersion Program was initiated approximately four years ago.
The program was designed to grow over time to eventually serve students in kindergarten through fifth
grade. Beginning next year (2014–2015 school year), the Broadway Elementary School campus will be
unable to support the planned growth of the program. The proposed project would enable the world
language instructional pathways initiative in the Venice High School Complex to align; the Mandarin
Program to continue to grow and operate on a single campus; the Spanish and English Dual-Language
Immersion Program at Broadway Elementary School to grow; the Broadway Elementary School to continue
to offer a traditional instructional program for the long-term; and future expansion of the Mandarin and
English Dual-Language Immersion Program into middle school on the Mark Twain Middle School campus.
POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: In accordance with Section 15082 of the State CEQA
Guidelines, the District has prepared this Notice of Preparation to provide Responsible Agencies and other
interested parties with information describing the proposal and its potential environmental effects.
Environmental factors that will be analyzed in the DEIR are:
 Aesthetics
 Biological Resources
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
 Land Use and Planning
 Pedestrian Safety
 Recreation
 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
 Cultural Resources
 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
 Mineral Resources
 Population and Housing
 Transportation and Traffic
 Air Quality
 Geology and Soils
 Hydrology and Water Quality
 Noise
 Public Services
 Utilities and Service Systems
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15082(b), the District is soliciting
comments regarding the environmental impacts of the proposed project. The District will accept written
comments between October 14, 2014 and November 12, 2014.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Please indicate a contact person for your agency or organization and send your
comments to:
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Attention: Edward Paek, AICP
Comments can also be sent by FAX to (213) 241-6816, or by e-mail to [email protected]. Please
include “Mandarin Immersion Project” in the subject line.
Page 2 of 2
Distrito Escolar Unificado de Los Ángeles
Oficina de Salud y Seguridad Ambiental
JOHN E. DEASY, Ph.D.
ENRIQUE G. BOULL’T
Superintendente Escolar
Director de Operaciones
YI HWA KIM
Director Interino, Salud y Seguridad Ambiental
DAVID PIPER
Subdirector Interino, Salud y Seguridad Ambiental
AVISO DE PREPARACIÓN
de un Borrador de Informe de Impacto Ambiental
A: Agencias, Organizaciones, Dueños de Propiedades y Partes Interesadas
ASUNTO: Aviso de Preparación de un Borrador de Informe de Impacto Ambiental
POR LA PRESENTE DAMOS AVISO que el Distrito Escolar Unificado de Los Ángeles (Distrito o LAUSD, por sus
siglas en inglés), como agencia líder del proyecto, preparará un Proyecto de Informe de Impacto Ambiental (DEIR, por
sus siglas en inglés) para evaluar los efectos ambientales por construir y operar el Proyecto de la Escuela Primaria de
Inmersión de Dos Idiomas Mandarín e Inglés en el plantel de la Escuela Secundaria Mark Twain (proyecto propuesto)
conforme con la Ley de Calidad Ambiental de California (CEQA, por sus siglas en inglés) [Código de Recursos
Públicos de California (PRC, por sus siglas en inglés), División 13, Sección 21000 et seq. (El Estatuto CEQA) y el
Código de Normas de California (CCR, por sus siglas en inglés), Título 14, División 6, Capítulo 3, Sección 15000 et seq.
(Guías CEQA)]. El Distrito busca las observaciones y comentarios de agencias responsables y confiables, otras agencias
que deben recibir este aviso, la Oficina de Estado de Planificación e Investigación, de residentes locales y de otras partes
interesadas sobre el alcance y contenido de la información ambiental que se incluirá en el DEIR.
Conforme a la Sección 15060(d) y 15082 de las Guías de CEQA, el Distrito no preparará un estudio inicial y comenzará
a trabajar directamente en el DEIR. El propósito de este aviso es solicitar comentarios en cuanto al contenido de la
DEIR.
TÍTULO DEL PROYECTO: Proyecto de la Escuela Primaria de Inmersión de Dos Idiomas Mandarín e Inglés en la
Escuela Secundaria Mark Twain
UBICACIÓN DEL PROYECTO: El sitio del proyecto propuesto es la Escuela Secundaria Mark Twain, ubicada en el
2224 Walgrove Avenue, Los Ángeles, California 90066 en las comunidades de Venice y Mar Vista dentro de la Ciudad
de Los Ángeles. La Escuela Secundaria Mark Twain está ubicada en la longitud -118.4º, latitud 34.0º en un
vecindario principalmente residencial, rodeado por Beethoven Street al este, Lucille Avenue al sur, Walgrove Avenue al
oeste y Victoria Avenue al norte.
333 South Beaudry Avenue, 28th Floor, Los Ángeles, CA 90017 Teléfono (213) 241-3199 Fax (213) 241-6816
La Oficina de Salud y Seguridad Ambiental se dedica a proveer un ambiente seguro y saludable para los estudiantes y empleados del Distrito Escolar Unificado de Los
Ángeles.
DESCRIPCIÓN DEL PROYECTO: El proyecto propuesto incluye, entre otros, un nuevo edificio escolar que
consiste de aproximadamente 15 aulas, salón de actividades múltiples y espacios administrativos y de apoyo; nuevos
servicios de comida e instalaciones para almorzar; áreas designadas para recreación para edad primaria y kindergarten;
áreas designadas para dejar a los estudiantes y estacionamiento de vehículos; y modificaciones a aproximadamente
ocho aulas portátiles existentes. El diseño del proyecto propuesto cumplirá con los requisitos de la Ley para Personas
con Discapacidades (ADA, por sus siglas en inglés), División del Arquitecto del Estado (DSA, por sus siglas en
inglés), CEQA, el Departamento de Control de Sustancias Tóxicas (DTSC, por sus siglas en inglés) y otras mejoras o
mitigaciones requeridas para asegurar el cumplimiento de los requisitos locales, estatales y/o federales de las
instalaciones; y el inmobiliario y equipamiento de escritorios apropiados para el grado, sillas y equipos.
El Programa de Inmersión de Dos Idiomas Mandarín e Inglés se inició aproximadamente hace cuatro años. El
programa fue diseñado para crecer con el paso del tiempo para eventualmente servir a los estudiantes desde el
kindergarten hasta el quinto grado. A partir del año que viene (2014-2015 año escolar), el plantel de la Primaria
Broadway no podrá apoyar el crecimiento planificado para el programa. El proyecto propuesto permitiría una
alineación con la iniciativa de caminos de instrucción de idiomas en el Complejo de la Preparatoria Venice; la
continuación del crecimiento del Programa de Mandarín y la operación en un solo campus; el desarrollo del Programa
de Inmersión de Dos Idiomas Español e Inglés en la Escuela Primaria Broadway; que la Escuela Primaria Broadway
continúe ofreciendo un programa de instrucción tradicional a largo plazo; y la expansión futura del Programa de
Inmersión de Dos Idiomas Mandarín e Inglés en la escuela secundaria en el plantel de la Escuela Secundaria Mark
Twain.
EFECTOS POTENCIALES EN EL MEDIO AMBIENTE: De acuerdo con la Sección 15082 de la Guías del
Estado de CEQA, el Distrito ha preparado este Aviso de Preparación para proporcionar a las Agencias Responsables y
otras partes interesadas la información que describe la propuesta y sus efectos potenciales en el medio ambiente. Los
factores ambientes que se analizarán en el DEIR son:
 Estética
 Recursos biológicos
 Emisiones de gases de efecto
invernadero
 Uso y planificación del terreno
 Seguridad de los peatones
 Recreación
 Agricultura y recursos forestales
 Recursos culturales
 Peligros y materiales peligrosos
 Calidad del aire
 Geología y suelos
 Hidrología y calidad del agua
 Recursos minerales
 Población y vivienda
 Transporte y tránsito
 Ruido
 Servicios públicos
 Servicios públicos y sistemas de
servicios
PERÍODO DE REVISIÓN PÚBLICA: Conforme con la Sección 15082(b) de las Guías de CEQA, el Distrito solicita
comentarios sobre los impactos ambientales del proyecto propuesto. El Distrito aceptará comentarios por escrito entre el
14 de octubre de 2014 y el 12 de noviembre de 2014.
COMENTARIOS PÚBLICOS: Por favor, indique una persona para contactar de su agencia u organización y envíe sus
comentarios a:
Distrito Escolar Unificado de Los Ángeles
Oficina de Salud y Seguridad Ambiental
th
333 South Beaudry Avenue, 28 Floor
Los Ángeles, CA 90017
Edward Paek, AICP
También se pueden enviar los comentarios por FAX a (213) 241-6816, o por correo electrónico a [email protected]. Por favor, incluir “Proyecto de Inmersión Mandarín” como asunto.
Página 2 de 2
APPENDIX B
COMMENTS ON NOTICE OF PREPARATION
APPENDIX B
COMMENTS ON NOTICE OF PREPARATION
Comment on the Draft EIR for Mandarin and English Dual-Language Immersion
Elementary School Project at Mark Twain Middle School:
Mar Vista
Community Council
Web: www.MarVista.org
P.O. Box 66871
Mar Vista, CA 90066
[email protected]
Officers 2014-2015
Chair
Bill Koontz
[email protected]
1st Vice Chair
Mitchell Rishe
[email protected]
2nd Vice Chair
John Kuchta
[email protected]
Secretary
Bill Duckett
[email protected]
Treasurer
Bill Scheding
[email protected]
Board of Directors
2014-2015
Zone Directors
Zone 1
Ken Alpern
Zone 2
Brad Wilhite
Zone 3
Bill Scheding
Zone 4
Michael Millman
Zone 5
Michelle Krupkin
Zone 6
Valerie Davidson
At-Large Directors
Robin Doyno
Bill Duckett
Yvette Molinaro
Mitchell Rishe
Melissa Stoller
Bill Scheding
Community Director
John Kuchta
The MVCC, on behalf of our neighboring stakeholders, requests the following items be
studied as part of the Mark Twain DEIR and further requests that any significant impacts
be mitigated back to zero:
-Traffic increase
-Traffic management plan utilizing remote and all potential drop-off and
pickup sites, such as on or near Venice Blvd.
-Tangible traffic solutions, such as one-way streets, off-street bus ports
and cross-campus drives
-Safe routes to school [to help mitigate traffic impacts]
-A staggered start and end to the school day be enforced for the Mandarin
Immersion Program and the Middle School Program, to help minimize
traffic impacts to the local neighborhood caused by drop off and pick up
traffic
-Circulation pattern/ingress and egress [where will the buses
load/unload/idling and fumes adjacent to residences]
-Construction impacts
-Serious consideration be given to adopt Dr. Patton's proposal for this
Facility- proposed buildings [location of, size, mass, scale, height]
-Any loss of playground, sports field, or open space from the construction of the new
school
-Any loss of playground or open space from the establishment of parking,
and to consider underground or remote parking alternatives
-The use of existing local alternative elementary school campuses for the
current elementary English and Spanish programs:
-To allow the Mandarin Program to continue to grow at its existing
location --to explore better utilization of other Westside
schools that are currently under-enrolled
-To address the concerns of Mar Vista parents that this campus
will best achieve the right balance of accommodating the needs
of local families with the needs of the LAUSD in general
-Water-preservation, energy-efficient and LEED-certified buildings to be
used in construction
-Any other proposed uses besides classrooms
-LAUSD ensures 90% of the students in this program, and any future
program that will increase student enrollment, use school bus
transportation only to access the school
Thank you for your consideration in this matter,
Bill Koontz, Chair
Mar Vista Community Council
Certified Neighborhood Council
August 13, 2002
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Eddie Guerrero
California Environmental Quality Act Comments
Mandarin Immersion Project
Wednesday, October 15, 2014 3:27:06 PM
If the schools allowable enrollment level is expected to increase with this project,
please advise as to the net increase in the number of students.
Please also advise as the the square footage of the proposed new building.
Thank you for your consideration of this request. -LADOT - Planning and Land Use Development
West L.A. / Coastal Division
7166 West Manchester Avenue, 90045
(213) 485-1062
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Larry Williams
Proper Contact Person for distribution of Draft EIR
Wednesday, October 22, 2014 3:46:24 PM
Hello, I am in receipt of the notice of preparation of a draft environmental impact report
for the Mandarin and English Dual-Language Immersion Elementary School Project
at Mark Twain Middle School. I wanted to know who else this was sent to at the
City of Los Angeles so that I can make a determination if the right person was
missed. In my position, I do not have responsibilities that would relate to this DEIR
and wanted to see who else from the City of Los Angeles received it.
Thank you for your assistance. Also, my address is listed as 149 South Broadway
Suite 300. The correct address here is 1149 South Broadway Suite 300.
Thank you for your assistance.
Larry Williams,
Chief Management Analyst
Bureau of Contract Administration
213 847-2466
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
[email protected]
California Environmental Quality Act Comments; Superintendent
[email protected]
(no subject)
Monday, November 17, 2014 4:55:54 PM
I don't know if you are still accepting public comments for the Mandarin School situation ~ I've been
thinking a lot about this after just recently being informed and digesting all of the facts provided. As a
parent of 2 elementary public school children and a local property owner I have many concerns. I really
feel that the amount of money being spent on this project could be used so much more wisely to
improve the neighborhood schools that are already in place. Broadway Elementary is where this
program was born and developed and is the perfect spot for this program to stay, continue to grow and
help to evolve that school and it's community. By moving that many students off of that campus,
LAUSD is setting that school up for complete failure and possibly closure. There are also issues that will arise by building an elementary school on the campus of a middle
school. Mark Twain is struggling as it is with enrollment and moving an entire separate elementary
school onto it's campus is not going to help matters. I have learned that the new principal has
implemented important changes and improvements that is guiding that school in the right direction. Suffocating their campus with construction of a school to house 600 students is going to kill the positive
path that Dr. Patton has created. Then there is Beethoven Street Elementary that in recent years through hard work and heavy parent
involvement has become an amazing local elementary school with high API scores and amazing
programs despite all of the continuous budget cuts. Beethoven's success is a huge contribution to the
community and the reason that many families choose to move to this area. Building a new elementary
school mere steps away is going to split this community and cause lower enrollment for all which will
be detrimental for all property owners and school involved. Lastly, let's talk about property owners on the north side of Mark Twain and along Walgrove. I urge any
LAUSD employee to drive down Walgrove between 5-6 pm on any given weekday where school
children in the aftercare programs are being picked up and see long it takes to drive 1 block. This
neighborhood does not need 600 more families driving in and parking to drop off and pick up their
children from school after enduring however many months of major construction noise, trucks
and traffic. Please consider all of this and understand that Mark Twain is not the answer for the Broadway
Mandarin Immersion School. Building a new school to ruin 3 other schools is not the answer. The
answer is already in place. Keep the Immersion School at the Broadway campus and use the bond
money to improve that school and distribute the excess funds to improve the other neighborhood
schools. Thank you for listening to my comments and concerns. I can be reached
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Sara Roos
CEQA requests for Mandarin Immersion on the westside
Monday, November 17, 2014 11:08:33 AM
To Whom It May Concern:
I attended the Mar Vista Neighborhood Council (MVCC) meetings presentation of the
LAUSD Community Relations Department on 11/13/14 regarding the proposed
Mandarin Immersion (MI) new building on the campus of Mark Twain Middle School
(MT).
I would like to submit my own concerns and suggestions for CEQA study as a
private citizen.
Traffic
We are all agreed the traffic situation along Walgrove between Washington Blvd and
up the hill into Santa Monica is nearly gridlocked for many hours of the day: a
problem.
Because the situation is so poor at "baseline", I am concerned that traffic mitigation
efforts to "zero", even if they were or could happen, would be insufficient.
I believe the situation needs to be looked at from a larger perspective than just the
addition of a new building to the Victoria Blvd side of the MT property.
One-way streets have been proposed for Victoria and Lucille but the difficulty
remains along Walgrove and Beethoven, too. Even if the crush of start/stop can be
removed to these side streets, all the cars involved will still need access via
Walgrove and Beethoven. This is the problem that needs mitigating. And the
through-put issues in concert with the city of Santa Monica at the top of the hill west
of its airport, and with CalTrans also, at Venice Blvd.
These are mighty sticky issues but mitigating the addition the school poses to the
problem even back to zero will be inadequate.
North-south transit along the far west side of LA is nearly non-functional currently. Walgrove, Beethoven, Centinela and Lincoln Blvds, as well as Inglewood -- all these
streets are overloaded to the point of inoperation right now .
Off-street drop off
An off-street drop off lane has been proposed for the new MI building on Victoria
Blvd. This should be considered for Walgrove Ave too. Widening Walgrove, eating into the setback must be considered, in fact. But schoolparent stopping along Walgrove anywhere for any of its schools, WalgroveES, Mark
TwainMS or VeniceHS should be considered a problem to be mitigated. A
concurrent re-directing of traffic for Walgrove AveES onto its side streets, Appleton
and Morningside Way, might help too as part of the MI traffic mitigation effort.
School Transportation
The MVCC community is eager to encourage local, by-foot arrival to school. Increasing functional, efficient school bus transit will help as well. Please consider returning transportation permit radius to at least the pre-2001?
two/three mile perimeter, and consider extending it as well to as close as one mile. Growing up in the 60's one-mile was the radius cutoff I was familiar with, and in
these highly congested communities, a strong case should be made for facilitating
public transportation in school kids even at greater monetary cost to the district. Perhaps the cost could be mitigated partly with a fee, but the environmental benefit
from limiting private car trips would be invaluable. Perhaps the fee could be fundraised from families as a community if its burden feels unfair on individuals; again
the community-wide benefit would be enormous.
As well, while the MI is split between two locations, BroadwayES and MarkTwainMS,
a shuttle bus should be considered for facilitating flow of teachers and
administration between schools as needed but more importantly, for the children of
families split between locations. Rather than drop a first grader at one school and
race in a private car to the other site with the fourth grader, please consider
receiving both children at one location and shuttling the second appropriately.
Collateral traffic impacts
Traffic related to VeniceHS also impacts both (all) schools along Walgrove. There is
a current effort to instigate drop off lanes along Venice Blvd for private vehicles and
move bus drop-off further from the intersection of Walgrove/Venice. This entire
situation needs attention, from the stop-light schedule and turn lane schedules, the
positioning of bus stop close to the intersection, and the volume of traffic trying to
snake its way across gridlock flow and into the police parking lots, garden driveway
access, and student parking lots and pool parking lots. There is just too much
movement in too many directions and it all bogs down. Surely this gnarled up
situation so close to Mark Twain has a direct impact on traffic flow there as well.
Again, the entire traffic dilemma all along the stretch from Washington Blvd in Culver
City, through LA and CalTrans' Venice Blvd and on up the hill to Pico in Santa Monica
-- through three -- four! -- jurisdictions all this traffic must be addressed globally.
Thank you (and good luck),
Sara Roos.
Mar Vista resident, LAUSD parent
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
STEVE WALLACE
DEIR Mark Twain Mandarin Immersion Program
Thursday, November 13, 2014 11:08:40 PM
Please Accept these Public Comment Concerns and
confirm receipt
Under Planning & Land Use
Serious consideration should also be given to not
displace the Mandarin Program Students and allow the
school to grow and continue its success on the
Broadway Campus, and move the traditional English
Program students to other local vastly under enrolled
schools and also move the Spanish Immersion Program
Students to local vastly under enrolled schools, thus
allowing $28 Million Dollars in Bond Money's to be
spread among the local school campuses for much
needed facility Improvements
Under Planning & Land Use
You are proposing the building of 15 New Classroom to add to
the 8 classrooms that will be renovated to house more than
500 New Students, when the current enrollment will only
utilize only 11 Classrooms, and there are no guarantees that
the new classrooms being constructed can be filled used.
These classrooms are taking up valuable green space play
areas at this campus and the potential for a section that could
be used as a substantial pick up and drop off zone.
Under Recreation
Consideration be given to the loss of recreation space due to
over construction on this site with no guarantee of filling the
12 additional classrooms being constructed that the existing
Mandarin Enrollment will not use without the increase in the
enrollment by a further 200 or more students to this program.
Under Transportation and Traffic
Walgrove and Beethoven Street are currently at gridlock with
each signal light and intersection North and South in D.O.T.
Terms, "Can Not Be Mitigated". The potential increase in
traffic as a result of 500 more students joining the Mark
Twain Campus would make this severely worse and
unacceptable to this community. All Traffic Mitigation
measures need to be considered prior to further development
of this project that would include cut through traffic from
every other street within a 360 degree radius of this campus.
Under Pedestrian Safety
The increased traffic on Walgrove and Beethoven, as well as
the cut through traffic creates a major safety hazard for the
students of this campus and the other surrounding campuses,
as well as stakeholders of this community.
Under Cultural Resources
LAUSD is a Failing Resource in this community, severely under
enrollment in every local school proves this fact, however
LAUSD want to displace a successful and thriving education
program, when the more suitable option would be to allow
the school to grow and continue its success on the
Broadway Campus, and move the traditional English
Program students to other local vastly under enrolled
schools and also move the Spanish Immersion Program
Students to local vastly under enrolled schools, thus
allowing $28 Million Dollars in Bond Money's to be
spread among the local school campuses for much
needed facility Improvements.
Under Public Service
This plan in its current state and for all the reasons above,
offers a Public Disservice and is far from offering any kind of
Public Service. This is a last ditched effort to stop a failing
school (Mark Twain) from being closed down due to rock
bottom enrollment, very low test scores for many years and
the District that has failed these students having to deal with
the recourse. This is a political game of chess with the
education of many students that will be impacted by these
decisions and is more than a public disservice, its disgusting.
Thank you for accepting these comments.
Steve Wallace
3820 Coolidge Avenue
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Courtney Webster
Zimmer, Steven
In favor of moving the Mandarin Program to Mark Twain
PastedGraphic-4.tiff
To whom it may concern:
We own a home in Mar Vista and are the parents of a child currently attending
Broadway Elementary in the Mandarin Program.
Our home middle school would be Mark Twain.
We are extremely pleased with the level of education that our son is experiencing at
Broadway and we are very excited that the program will be moving to the campus
at Mark Twain. We would happily walk to school.
I am aware that there are concerns by residents about traffic and am hopeful that
we can work together as a community to strategize and minimize the impact on the
neighborhood and bring an outstanding program to a new home.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely, Courtney and Nick Webster
12551 Caswell Ave
Courtney Webster, CPCC, ACC
[email protected]
310-739-3337 scheduling
310-751-0508 appointment only
www.yourrecoveredlife.com
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
staci lamkin
Zimmer, Steven; Superintendent
Mandarin Immersion Construction
To Whom It May Concern- Mandarin Immersion Building Construction
We believe the Mandarin Immersion program is fantastic but are concerned about the traffic impact on our neighborhood. We live in the Wood Streets just south of Beethoven Elementary & Mark Twain. We walk down our block Greenwood Ave.
and cross Lucille to get to Beethoven. My son will be attending Mark Twain next year. Currently the the North & South traffic on Beethoven & Walgrove are packed with cars from 745A- 10A. This is not true
during the summer months, so this traffic is directly related to school transportation. Crossing Lucille to get to Beethoven
Elementary is a dangerous activity currently. Trying to go any where north before 10A is impossible. There have been
many accidents on Beethoven at Victoria, even though there is a stop light there. There has also been many accidents on
Walgrove at Victoria, where there is a stop light as well. This proposed school will have drop off and pick up off of Victoria,
which is additionally congested with buses and teacher parking. Currently there is not enough room for teacher parking
and the teachers have to park on the basketball courts. While trying to get to a morning doctor appt. my husband and 5 year old go into a car accident at Beethoven & Victoria. 3
Blocks from home! We avoid morning appointments now. I have recently bought “Drive Slow, Children at Play” signs for
our neighborhood street. Currently cars cut through the neighborhood streets in order to avoid Beethoven & Walgrove that
have stand still traffic. Last week our cat was run over by a cut through car during rush hour. The current traffic situation is
horrible and adding hundreds and hundreds of more cars would truly ruin our our quality of life living near these schools. In addition to Walgrove Elementary being next door North and John Adams Intermediate of Santa Monica being just North
of Walgrove Elementary and Venice High School directly South, it’s an extremely busy area.
The best would be to keep the Mandarin Elementary School at it’s current location since that school has the lowest
enrollment of all these local schools and share some class rooms at Mark Twain for the Intermediate school kids. A shuttle
system would need to be set up to bring in these intermediate students from else where. Since the purpose of the program
is to give priority to hundreds of students from far away locations, there definitely needs to be a drop off location away from
our already congested neighborhood.
The facility money then could be used to upgrade and repair the various public schools that have grown in enrollment
despite budget cuts but are in desperate need of facility repairs. Bathroom repairs, plumbing, air conditioning and water
systems that have been in need of fixing for years at Beethoven, Walgrove and Mark Twain. Instead of wasteful spending
on something new, lets take care of what we have. Thank you for your time-
Staci & Marc Boggeri
3765 Greenwood Ave.
LA 90066
Mar Vista home owner since 2000
Staci Lamkin Boggeri, DGA
Marc, Zebedee & Zomaya
Staci Boggeri / staciboggeri.legalshieldassociate.com
LEGALSHIELD Broker
Worry less. Live more.
C 310.293.2890
H 310.737.1172
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Ken Marek
Mandarin Immersion Elementary School DEIR Input
Friday, November 14, 2014 12:04:55 PM
Dear LAUSD CEQA Team,
As you prepare the DEIR related to construction of the Mandarin Immersion Elementary School in
Mar Vista, please consider a priority enrollment area for children that reside within approximately
a one mile radius of the new campus. This would encourage walking and biking to school and help
to mitigate the traffic impact on Walgrove Avenue, Beethoven Avenue and other north/south
streets in the surrounding area. I am a local resident/MI parent who is very supportive of the
proposed MI school, and am hopeful that creative solutions will help to mitigate the impact of
increased traffic on our already overburdened local streets. I believe that granting first enrollment
priority to children who live in the area that is approximately bound by Santa Monica Airport,
Washington Blvd., Lincoln Blvd. and Centinela Ave. (in advance of children who live throughout all
of LAUSD West) will encourage walking and biking to school, and minimize the traffic impact on
local streets.
Respectfully,
Ken Marek
3924 Redwood Avenue
310-289-1300
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Ken Marek
Mandarin Immersion Elementary School Traffic Mitigation Idea
Tuesday, November 18, 2014 12:33:30 PM
Hello Again,
I have one more idea that might help with traffic mitigation for the proposed Mandarin Immersion
Elementary School on the Mark Twain campus.
For families who live on the south side of Venice High School, the north/south streets around VHS
are quite narrow and very busy during commuting hours. These streets are not safe for elementary
school children to ride bikes or scooters to school, thus encouraging area families to drive and create
more neighborhood gridlock. It seems that a low cost solution would be to create a bike lane
through the VHS property, from Zanja Street, between the VHS gym and football field, and winding
north to Venice Blvd. near the existing signalized crosswalk at Maplewood Ave. From there children
could ride one block up Maplewood to enter the new school site from the Lucille Avenue side.
I hope that this is helpful.
Best regards,
Ken Marek
3924 Redwood Ave.
310-289-1300
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
[email protected]
Mandarin Immersion Project at Mark Twain Middle School
Friday, October 24, 2014 1:27:19 PM
Dear LAUSD,
This is In response to your “Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report” for the
Mandarin/English Dual Language Immersion Elementary School Project at Mark Twain Middle School.
As a resident in the impacted neighborhood, I would like to submit my OPPOSITION to the project:
The traffic in our neighborhood within the Venice Blvd.-Walgrove Ave.-Palms Blvd.-Beethoven Blvd.
boundaries will be adversely affected by the creation of yet another school campus. Currently, the above
mentioned streets are jammed with traffic during the morning and afternoon/evening commute hours. We cannot absorb any more traffic at this time. The creation of a new school will increase the already
impossible traffic in our residential neighborhood which greatly decreases the quality of life for all
residents. PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN!!!
Sincerely,
Connie Red
Ph 310.391.6657
Fax 310.313.4109
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Nadya Malconian
Mandarin Immersion Project at Mark Twain Middle School
Monday, October 20, 2014 9:14:30 AM
EIR.pdf
Dear LAUSD,
In response to your “Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report” for the
Mandarin/English Dual Language Immersion Elementary School Project at Mark Twain
Middle School and as a resident in the impacted neighborhood, I would like to submit my
OPPOSITION to the project:
The traffic in our neighborhood within the Venice Blvd.-Walgrove Ave.-Palms Blvd.Beethoven Blvd. boundaries will be adversely affected by the creation of yet another school
campus. Currently, the above mentioned streets are jammed with traffic during the
morning and afternoon/evening commute hours. We cannot absorb more traffic at this
time. The creation of a new school will increase the already impossible traffic in our
residential neighborhood which greatly decreases the quality of life for all residents. PLEASE
DO NOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN!!!
Respectfully,
The Malconian Families
Mar Vista Residents
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Robyn McNutt
Mandarin immersion project
Thursday, October 16, 2014 11:42:48 AM
We are all in favor for upgrading our local schools including Mark Twain MS.
Our neighborhood has concerns about how this project is going to impact our everyday lives. I have
read the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environment Impact Report and it is vague at best as to where
on campus construction will take place.
Can you elaborate as to the exact location on campus that you plan on beautifying? How long will the
project go on for? Where will the primary construction entrance/exit be and where will all those
construction workers park?? Who will enforce that construction staff comply as to not impact the
neighborhood?? Where will the alleged student drop-off location be? The neighborhood would ideally
like to keep all construction vehicles, staff, equipment, etc. on campus and not on our streets. We
unfortunately don't have tons of street parking as it is.
Besides the school getting a facelift, what's in it for the neighborhood besides the potential laundry list
of potential environmental effects? I realize it's for educations sake, but over the years (1986-since I've
lived here) Mark Twain has not been a very neighborly school. Perhaps part of the project would allow
for the neighborhood access to the school playground and gymnasium on certain days? Or perhaps local
neighborhood watch meetings could be held on campus? Right now our neighborhood watch meeting
place is in an alley!!!
The neighbors look forward to hearing more about the construction plan.
Robyn McNutt
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
joyce keeler
Tuesday, October 14, 2014 9:15:34 PM
I received the notification about the project. As an immediate neighbor of Mark
Twain I would like to know WHERE on the campus this project is being planned. Is
anything being torn down and replaced or is the project taking away play/exercise
area? It is a big campus combined with Beethoven Elementary and I would like to
know more specific location plans.
Thank you,
Joyce Keeler
3645 Maplewood (corner Victoria)
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Randi Barrow
Dear LAUSD,
I live half-a-block from Mark Twain Middle School, the proposed site of the Mandarin Immersion
School. I am writing to register my objections to the project based on the congestion, and traffic that
we are experiencing in Mar Vista.
As you know the main north/south streets for this area are Walgrove and Beethoven which border
the project. In the last few years, especially after the development of Playa Vista, those streets are
now gridlocked for a good portion of the day. Often the line of unmoving cars starts at Pearl Street and
doesn't let up until past Washington Blvd. It has become a serious challenge to get to and from work,
and to balance all the other errands that have to be done in such a small and congested area. The
new school you propose would make it even worse.
What you failed to mention in your letter is that Beethoven School is situated just in back of Mark
Twain. We are already dealing with the traffic, population, parking problems etc. that go with
having TWO schools on the same piece of property. To add a third says that someone does not know
this neighborhood, or doesn't care about its needs or both. And that's not even mentioning the open,
green space in back of Mark Twain that would be taken away. It is used every day for soccer, baseball
practice, or some sort of exercise for the school kids. It also provides a visual relief for the rest of us
from the ever more crowded neighborhood that is being transformed by mansionization.
The neighborhood is terribly upset by the possibility of this school. I hope others are taking the time
to make their voices heard.
Sincerely,
Randi Barrow
3620 Maplewood Ave.
L.A. CA 90066
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Jack Macmillan
Mandarin Immersion School
Dear LAUSD,
My home is on Maplewood Ave. midway between Walgrove & Beethoven and about a half
block North of the Mark Twain Schoolyard.
The location of Beethoven and Mark Twain Schools occupying one piece of land that spans
all the way between Walgrove and Beethoven, and the Walgrove School which is about 3
blocks North spanning the space between Walgrove and Maplewood Ave are a large cause
of bumper to bumper congestion for large portions of each day. The Playa Vista
developement to the South has added greatly to the problem and will be even more
troublesome as it is completed!
Someone needs to do his/her homework regarding the growing overcrowding of this
neighborhood and the growing dissatisfaction of the residents.
Thank you for your serious consideration of the well being of our neighborhood.
Sincerely,
John K. Macmillan
3621 Maplewood Ave.
Mar Vista 90066 John and Karen Stern
3613 Rosewood Avenue
(310) 572-1040
Email [email protected]
November 14, 2014
LAUSD (District)
333 S. Beaudry Ave, 28th Fl.
LA, CA 90017
Attn: Edward Pack, AICP
RE: Draft EIR for Mandarin Program at Mark Twain Middle School
Dear Mr. Pack:
I recently contacted your office and spoke with you about the above matter. You
indicated that you would email information about this matter to me. I never received the
information and only over the last two evening’s meetings when information was
presented to the community by the District staff was I able to learn about the program the
District intends to place in my neighborhood. I am concerned about several factors of the
intended facility. Consequently, I would appreciate you’re accepting our comments for
the draft EIR from this communication.
Given the underutilization of existing elementary school facilities in the area, the
intolerable traffic conditions that exist in our neighborhood and the lack of usable
permanent open space in the area, the “No Construction” alternative must be assessed.
Please do so by responding to the following questions:
1. To achieve the “No Construction” alternative at the chosen site (Mark Twain) the
following approaches should be addressed and utilized, as appropriate:
a. Given that several of the local elementary schools (Walgrove, Short,
Westminster, Beethoven, Coeur D’Alene, Grand View, Mar Vista, etc.)
are underutilized, i.e., operating at less than program capacity, look at
redistributing the existing student load among existing facilities to free up
existing classrooms at one school to accommodate the Mandarin program.
b. Include Mark Twain’s space in the study: it’s reportedly operating at half
to 70 % of program capacity.
c. Use a combination of schools within a tight geographic area to
accommodate the program.
d. Look at other areas of the LAUSD, e.g., mid-city, Westchester, Playa
Vista, etc. where traffic is less congested to find existing or build new
facilities for the program. Determine from where the majority of the
students would come who already have some required language capability,
and build or utilize an existing facility near them.
2. How do current traffic conditions compare to LA City established norms for
traffic counts on the size streets leading to the site, especially Walgrove and
Beethoven Avenues, from Venice Blvd. to the Santa Monica border? Are they
now at acceptable or better levels? If not, is it reasonable to add trips without
serious mitigation measures? What would be those measures?
3. Is the addition of 600 trips during the morning and afternoon rush hours plus
those of staff and ancillary personnel a reasonable burden to place on the already
impacted streets? In that the primary service area is approximately 144 square
miles, and there is a program requirement that 50% of the incoming students
already have some Mandarin language skills, it is reasonable to assume that the
predominance of the students will be coming from homes outside the immediate
Mar Vista area, therefore necessitating delivery by car. Given the age of the
children, it is reasonable to assume that parents would want to ensure the safe
arrival of their children directly to the front door of the school, which will be on a
small neighborhood side street. How will this be handled? Please provide
estimates of the distances the students and staff will travel to this site?
4. At present, there is but one large usable open space (the field on which the school
is to be built) between Venice Boulevard on the south, Walgrove on the west,
Centinela/Bundy on the east and the Santa Monica Airport to the north (over one
square mile). What is the City norm and does the removal of 4 acres of this space
comport with the standards? How can the removal of usable permanent open
space (the Mark Twain play field) from the area be mitigated?
We believe this project to be a poorly conceived, simple solution to a complex problem
that ignores several important realities. The expenditure of $30 million of tax payer
money to build new when adequate facilities already exist is irresponsible.
Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to your responses.
Sincerely,
John and Karen Stern
John and Karen Stern
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
katherine leighnor
Los Angeles Unified School District.docx
Please Forward this attached letter to Edward Paek.
Thank you,
Katherine
Katherine Leighnor [email protected]
310-924-9537 mobile
310-398-4769 studio
3745 Rosewood Avenue
Attention: Edward Paek, AICP
Re: Mandarin and English Dual Language Immersion Elementary School Project
November 13, 2014
Dear Edward,
Last night I attended a meeting at Mark Twain Middle School regarding the
Mandarin and English Dual Language Immersion Elementary School Project. I am a
resident living directly across from the school’s playground at Rosewood and Lucille
Avenue. I have been witness to this school’s activities for close to seven years now.
In last night’s meeting, the representatives for the LAUSD were very sure of
themselves and of this proposed project being completed. Very little regard was
evident towards the community in attendance by LAUSD’s cocksure attitude. One of
the LAUSD representatives voiced the fact that LA Schools in this area are underenrolled and thus the need to find ways to increase enrollment, was the reason for
building this new school – by creating a draw to families interested in dual language
programs.
The proposed new school immersion program is the LAUSD’s Board member’s
answer to this under-enrollment problem? Novel as it is, it is an ill-considered idea!
Why not address the real core issues as to why student enrollment is dropping in LA
County? The lack of a diverse education including the arts, physical education,
unkempt buildings, and the bussing of children from outside communities is a good
place to start.
Learning a second language is a wonderful idea. Why not offer it within the very
schools that exist now, the schools that are suffering from under enrollment?
Rather than spending at minimum, $30 million on this proposed project, invest in
the multiple LA schools that already exist! Repair the infrastructure of these
schools. One million dollars to thirty of Los Angeles schools would provide a great
incentive to create and sustain a dual language immersion project. There would also
be enough income to offer the arts and music in the schools again, as well as
physical education, and hot lunches. Then the enforced bussing to raise the
enrollment will no longer be needed. Local parents will choose to send their
children to the local school again. Let the children go to school within their own
communities, and stop the bussing!
Building another school here at Mark Twain Middle School will be an environmental
catastrophe! It is already a densely populated area. The traffic is very heavy on
Beethoven, Walgrove, Lucille and Victoria. Parking is at a maximum at all times.
Adding another new school expected to hold 567 new students will make this area
insufferable!! Obviously the LAUSD board members voting for this project DO NOT
live in this area!
Addressing a few of the obvious problems:
Right now, the open field of Mark Twain is a wonderful relief to this densely
populated area. The new buildings will destroy this! Once it is gone, the community
will lose a vital resource that provides wellbeing to everyone.
The expected increase of people coming in and out of our neighborhood will grow to
unsafe and disruptive volume. More speeding motorists rushing through the Stop
signs without stopping! More busses! More service trash trucks, and large service
trucks DAILY and into the night! The noise will be nonstop! More bells and alarms!
With the incoming constant throng of people and cars, there will also be an increase
in smog, pollution and noise!
And then there is the disruption during construction! We know what construction
is: it is loud, dirty, dusty, and congested, and runs longer than anticipated.
The bussing of children from other communities is a big problem. These bussed
children have little in common with the children living in this area, and little respect
for the community as well. I see and hear a lot of unsavory activity at Mark Twain
Middle School from my home and there is a blatant disregard and disrespect by
these bussed in children for our community and school alike. I also witness the
supposed adult supervisors of the school turning a blind eye to the children’s
unsavory behavior and foul mouths on a daily basis! Parents within our community
are opting to send their children to PRIVATE Schools so their children DO NOT have
to be subjected to the undesirable behavior of the bussed in ones.
Our quality of life will diminish with more of the same coming in by this proposed
new school. Why not fund the schools within their own communities to eliminate
bussing?
LAUSD should take care of what it already has: the existing schools! Rebuild,
reinforce, and renew its commitment to the communities and its children by funding
these existing schools throughout Los Angeles with the 30 million capital funds
proposed for a shiny new glamorous school (What TRASH! A waste of Taxpayer’s
Hard Earned Money! )
WAKE UP!
Sincerely from a Citizen who CARES for Our Community,
Katherine Leighnor
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Sharon Commins
Tricia Keane; Chris Robertson; Debbie DynerHarris; [email protected]; [email protected]
Mandarin Immersion/Mark Twain Draft EIR scoping comments
To LAUSD: Re: Mandarin Immersion Program proposed new campus at Mark
Twain Middle School
The following issues and impacts should studied in the draft EIR: 1. The regional impacts upon public sports fields created by permanent
removal of fully one half of the playable field space on the east side of
Mark Twain MS
2. Traffic study of both existing and proposed campuses including:
volume; circulation pattern; ingress and egress; analysis of any proposed
reconfiguration of streets; transportation demand management plan; and
a unified drop off and pick up system for the entire campus property
3. Site plans and elevations of proposed buildings: exact location of, size,
mass, scale, height and any other proposed buildings/uses besides
classrooms
4. An alternative which upgrades the entire school to make better use of
existing resources instead of building a second, separate campus [which
duplicates facilities] Sharon Commins
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
[email protected]
Mandarin School/Mark Twain
Saturday, November 15, 2014 10:29:33 PM
With classrooms and buildings standing empty or partly empty, it doesn’t make sense to me
that the city would consider building new buildings/classrooms for this school instead of
moving them into existing facilities.
Laraine Crampton, SM resident
Sent from Windows Mail
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Carrie Kangro
Mark Twain Proposal
To whom it may concernMy family and I live 1/2 block from Mark Twain and did NOT receive a letter regarding the proposed
Mandarin Immersion school being built there.
Thankfully social media brought it to my attention.
The letter was vague at best- http://www.laschools.org/.../329-13-14_04-08-2014.pdf Where exactly on Mark Twain property is the school proposed to be built on? Where exactly would kids enter/exit and get dropped off at?
And most importantly, aside from all of the environmental effects (of which there is no detail on), how
would this benefit our neighborhood?
Wouldn't this money be better spent on enhancing Mark Twain to a middle school that our neighborhood
kids can actually attend?
We have two great elementary schools right here, and then we have to send our kids to Santa Monica for
middle school, even when there is one, that has potential to be great, right here!
Please let me know how we, as concerned neighbors, can be kept abreast of the progress.
Thank you,
Carrie Kangro
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Kerry Bennett
New School at Mark Twain Elementary
Tuesday, November 18, 2014 3:03:00 PM
Hello -- as a Mar Vista Woods resident, I'm writing to express my concern over the
planned school on the Mark Twain site. While a new school has tremendous impact to the community, adding an additional
set of buildings and classes on that property would exacerbate an already intolerable
congestion situation. During the school year, both Walgrove and Centinela are
completely congested, with traffic up to 45 minutes to travel from Ocean Park to
Venice. School busses already idle on Victoria Ave for the existing schools for over
an hour. Furthermore, traffic is not only inconvenient, but resulting in a number of accidents
with cars and bikers. Quite simply, the neighborhood, which must be accessed by
Walgrove or Centinela due to the airport, is not built for the existing traffic,
congestion and air quality. To add another set of buildings would be a mistake. Thank you -Kerry Bennett
3617 Ashwood Avenue
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
[email protected]
No on Mandarin School
As a taxpayer and neighbor in Mar Vista I do not want the school being built here.
1. We have empty schools that can be fixed up and used.
2. Too much traffic already.
3. Local kids need services and priority.
If indeed you will go ahead, we expect full disclosure and transparency.
We expect a full study done on Environment Impact, traffic mitigation, detailed plan with heights and
footprint. Sports fields and open space preserved. Green building, parking and bus rules and times. Cap
on amount of students allowed for 10 years, Local kids first in line.
I think Mandarin school can rehab their existing campus.
We do not want this school here no matter how they spin this. I want good eduction and smart kids
but this is not helping many of the everyday residents living here.
No thanks to Mandarin.
Thanks
Jim
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Andrea Bell
re: elementary school to be built at Mark Twain Middle School
As a long time resident of this area I am adamantly opposed to moving 600 additional students into this
middle school. You have chosen a site that is on the north/south corridor of Walgrove Ave., whch has
become increasingly congested with traffic as the city continues to allow building without increasing
routes to handle the traffic. Both Walgrove and Beethoven which borders the school on the east side
are seriously impacted. What used to be a 10 minute drive into Santa Monica when I moved here 15
years ago now can take me between 35-45 minutes. This is just not sustainable.
Keep he students where they are currently housed.
Andrea Bell
310-390-5027
resident of Los Angeles 90066
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
STEVE WALLACE
Paek, Edward
Re: Mandarin and English Dual-Language Immersion Elementary School Project at Mark Twain Middle School CEQA Notice of Preparation
Friday, October 17, 2014 3:41:53 PM
Thanks
Have a great weekend.
Steve
On 10/17/2014 3:36 PM, Paek, Edward wrote:
We expect the Draft EIR to be available for public review sometime in mid-December
or early-January. A Notice of Completion (NOC) will be distributed to all interested
parties when it becomes available.
The public meeting for the Draft EIR will tentatively occur in mid to late January.
Edward S. Paek, AICP
CEQA Project Manager | Contract Professional
LAUSD | Office of Environmental Health & Safety
O: (213) 241-6281 | 28-134-06
From: STEVE WALLACE [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 3:21 PM
To: Paek, Edward; [email protected]
Cc: Schanen, Patrick; Espinoza, Anthony; Singletary, Scott; Tapia, Fortunato; Vizcarra,
Claudia; Golida, Jay; Mike Bonin; len nguyen; 'bill koontz'
Subject: Re: Mandarin and English Dual-Language Immersion Elementary School Project
at Mark Twain Middle School - CEQA Notice of Preparation
Thank you for your understanding Mr. Paek.
Are you still expecting the Draft EIR to be presented Q1 of 2015?
Steve
You are very welcome. We definitely understand your concerns about
giving the community ample time to understand the project and provide
meaningful input for the content of the EIR. Therefore, OEHS will agree to
accept comments received past the November 12 scoping period closing
date for a period of up to two weeks (through November 26).
We look forward to receiving your input.
Best regards,
O: (213) 241-6281 | 28-134-06
From: STEVE WALLACE [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 4:37 PM
To: Paek, Edward; [email protected]
Cc: Schanen, Patrick; Espinoza, Anthony; Singletary, Scott; Tapia,
Fortunato; Vizcarra, Claudia; Golida, Jay; Mike Bonin; len nguyen; 'bill
koontz'
Subject: Re: Mandarin and English Dual-Language Immersion Elementary
School Project at Mark Twain Middle School - CEQA Notice of Preparation
Thanks for the information Mr. Paek.
Since you have given notification to the public and asked for written
public comments, I feel that the public should be given enough time to
consider the project and have ample time, if they wish, to submit any and
all public comments.
Asking the public to comment on a project that they know nothing about,
because the project status meetings will probably be held the day before
or even after the last day public comment is accepted, is unreasonable.
Many Community Councils including Mar Vista and Venice, as well as
Home Owner and Neighborhood Groups may have 1 meeting within this
time frame, which is not sufficient time to analyze the project and any
potential environmental effects it may or may not have, and have time to
make any public comment.
I would recommend that you consider allowing another 30 days so that
everyone has time to understand the scope of the project, allowing the
time required to respond with public comment and Close the Public
Comment period on December 14th 2014.
Looking forward to your reply.
Sincerely
Steve Wallace
MVCC PLUM Co-Chair
Dear Mr. Wallace and Ms. Parker,
OEHS was informed of your comments regarding the
Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental
Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed Mandarin and
English Dual-Language Immersion Elementary School
Project at Mark Twain Middle School.
The NOP is the first step of the CEQA process. The
purpose of the NOP is to inform applicable State
regulatory agencies that a DEIR is being prepared and
to get their feedback on the scope and content of the
environmental information related to the agency’s area
of statutory responsibility. While the State CEQA
guidelines do not legally require that the NOP be
circulated to the public, the NOP was distributed in
English and Spanish as a courtesy to local community
groups, as well as all homeowners within a 500-foot
radius of the school, per LAUSD procedures. The NOP is
available for a 30-day scoping period that began on
October 13 and ends on November 12. Comments
received during the scoping period will be considered
during preparation of the DEIR.
It is anticipated that the DEIR, which will include the
analyses of environmental impacts of the project, will
be completed and available for review and comment in
December 2014 or January 2015 for a 45-day public
review period. During the public review period, a public
meeting will be held to solicit comments on the DEIR.
Upon completion of the public review period, all
comments received will be addressed in a Final EIR,
which will go before the Board of Education for their
consideration (tentatively scheduled for the 2 nd quarter
of 2015).
So to respond to your concerns, we are very early in
the CEQA process. In addition to the NOP scoping
period, the community will be given further
opportunities to comment on the DEIR once it is
completed and released for public review. To clarify,
the community meetings being hosted by LAUSD’s
Community Relations Department in November are
project status meetings and are not associated with the
CEQA process. The public meeting for CEQA and the
Draft EIR will be held at a later date.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any further
questions or concerns.
Best regards,
333 S. Beaudry Ave, 28 th Floor | Los Angeles, CA 90017
O: (213) 241-6281 | 28-134-06
-Steve Wallace
VP Sales, Marketing & Business Development
Medicool, Inc. / Isabel Cristina
20460 Gramercy Place
Torrance, California 90501 USA
Tel - 310-782-2200
Fax - 310-782-8900
Cell - 310-714-9225
skype - steve.wallace5068
"This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it are the
property
of Medicool, Inc. are confidential, and are intended
solely for
the use of the individual or entity to whom this e-mail
is addressed.
If you are not one of the named recipient(s) or
otherwise have
reason to believe that you have received this message in
error,
please notify the sender at 310-782-2200 and delete this
message
immediately from your computer. Any other use,
retention,
dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this
e-mail
is strictly prohibited
-Steve Wallace
Tel - 310-782-2200
Fax - 310-782-8900
Cell - 310-714-9225
"This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it are the property
of Medicool, Inc. are confidential, and are intended solely for
the use of the individual or entity to whom this e-mail is
addressed.
If you are not one of the named recipient(s) or otherwise have
reason to believe that you have received this message in error,
please notify the sender at 310-782-2200 and delete this message
immediately from your computer. Any other use, retention,
dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail
-Steve Wallace
Tel - 310-782-2200
Fax - 310-782-8900
Cell - 310-714-9225
"This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it are the property
of Medicool, Inc. are confidential, and are intended solely for
the use of the individual or entity to whom this e-mail is addressed.
If you are not one of the named recipient(s) or otherwise have
reason to believe that you have received this message in error,
please notify the sender at 310-782-2200 and delete this message
immediately from your computer. Any other use, retention,
dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Ashley Halverson
Zimmer, Steven; California Environmental Quality Act Comments; Superintendent
Urgent ~ Broadway Mandarin Immersion Move
Monday, November 17, 2014 11:21:12 AM
I have recently been informed of the potential move of the Broadway Mandarin Immersion School
to the Mark Twain Middle School Campus. As a parent of 2 elementary public school children
and a local property owner I have many concerns. I really feel that the amount of money being
spent on this project could be used so much more wisely to improve the neighborhood schools that
are already in place. Broadway Elementary is where this program was born and developed and is
the perfect spot for this program to stay, continue to grow and help to evolve that school and it's
community. By moving that many students off of that campus, LAUSD is setting that school up
for complete failure and possible closure. There are also issues that will arise by building an elementary school on the campus of a middle
school. Mark Twain is struggling as it is with enrollment and moving an entire separate
elementary school onto it's campus is not going to help matters. I have learned that the new
principal has implemented important changes and improvements that is guiding that school in the
right direction to become the go-to neighborhood middle school. Suffocating their campus with
construction of a school to house 600 elementary school students is going to kill the positive path
that Dr. Patton has created. That school needs improvements that will benefit the middle school
age students and encourage more local student enrollment. Then there is Beethoven Street Elementary that in recent years through hard work and heavy parent
involvement has become an amazing local elementary school with high API scores that also offers
an array of programs despite all of the continuous budget cuts. Beethoven's success is a huge
contribution to the community and the reason that many families choose to move to this area. Building a new elementary school mere steps away is going to split this community and cause
lower enrollment for all which will be detrimental for all of the schools and property owners
involved. Lastly, let's talk about property owners, specifically on the north side of Mark Twain and along
Walgrove Avenue. I urge any LAUSD representative to drive down Walgrove between 5-6 pm on
any given weekday where school children in the aftercare programs are being picked up and see
long it takes to drive 1 block. This neighborhood does not need 600 more families driving in and
parking along the neighboring streets to drop off and pick up their children from school and adding
to the already congested high traffic area. More automobile traffic will be the end result for these
property owners after having to endure however many months of major construction noise and
extra truck traffic during the construction to build the new school buildings on 9 acres of Mark
Twain land. Please seriously consider the real impact of this situation and understand that Mark Twain is not
the answer for the Broadway Mandarin Immersion School. Building a new school to ruin 3 other
schools is not the answer. The answer is already in place. Keep the Immersion School at the
Broadway campus and use the bond money to improve that school and distribute the excess funds
to improve the other neighborhood schools. Thank you for listening to my comments and concerns. I can be reached anytime via email or my
contact numbers below for further comments or to any questions. ~~~
Ashley Halverson
Director of Property Management
Tel ~ 310.278.0068
Cell ~ 310.721.6156
Paek, Edward
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Robin Doyno [[email protected]]
Friday, December 12, 2014 4:00 PM
California Environmental Quality Act Comments; Paek, Edward
Mark Twain/Mandarin Emersion Program
12‐12‐2014 Dear Mr. Paek, There are are several issues of importance to the community that must be addressed concerning the Mark Twain/Mandarin Emersion Program. The first issue is traffic and the second is emergency preparedness. The Mar Vista Education Corridor is comprised of Venice High School with 2773 students, (plus teachers, administrators and other employees and visitors), Beethoven Street E.S. with 349 students (plus), Mark Twain E.S. with 700 students (plus) and Walgrove Avenue E.S. with 350 students (plus). In total, this education hub may have at any one time 4,000 students plus teachers, staff and visitors in an area only one and one quarter mile long. As a greater traffic load is is added to this education corridor a number of tangible mitigations to traffic should be considered. In no particular order of importance they are : 1) The establishment of a circular drive on the Mark Twain campus to accommodate busses and parents in autos. 2) Off street bus ports for sitting busses. (either on campus or parkway space) 3) A cross campus drive to accommodate cars and/or busses 4) Establishing Lucille and Victoria as one way streets 5) Extensive bus use from satellite drop‐off/pick up locations. 6) Reestablishing the pre 2001 bus permit regulations to a radius of a 2 to 3 mile perimeter and even reducing it to as close as 1/2 mile. In the event of (or likely probability of) a major disaster event the preparation by LAUSD for the 4,000 plus students of the 4 schools in the 1 and 1/4 mile Mar Vista Education Corridor will prove to be essential. The coordination and consultation of the LAUSD with the City of Santa Monica, Caltrans and the Los Angeles D.O.T. may be necessary to address the traffic concerns of our Mar Vista education Corridor. Serious traffic mitigations could be life saving in the event of an emergency event as well as of great community benefit for daily traffic issues. Thank for your consideration of this important matter. Respectfully submitted, Robin Doyno 12551 Barbara Ave. Los Angeles,CA 90066 [email protected] (310)467‐7244 1
APPENDIX C
CALEEMOD MODEL FOR LAUSD MANDARIN AND ENGLISH
DUAL-LANGUAGE IMMERSION SCHOOL
PROPOSED PROJECT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2
Page 1 of 25
Date: 3/2/2015 6:05 PM
LAUSD Mandarin and English Dual Immersion School- Mark Twain Proposed Project
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
1.0 Project Characteristics
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses
Size
Metric
Lot Acreage
Floor Surface Area
Population
Elementary School
33.00
1000sqft
0.76
33,000.00
0
User Defined Recreational
0.00
User Defined Unit
1.90
0.00
0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Urban
Wind Speed (m/s)
Climate Zone
11
Utility Company
Los Angeles Department of Water & Power
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
1227.89
CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
2.2
0.029
Precipitation Freq (Days)
33
Operational Year
2017
N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006
Page 2 of 25
Date: 3/2/2015 6:05 PM
Project Characteristics Land Use - Land Use - Recreation User Defined Unit - Proposed project alternative includes 10,000 SF of kinder play area and 1.7 acres of regular play area.
Construction Phase - Demo: No Demolition to take place.
Site Prep: 1/4/16 - 1/31/16
Grading: 2/1/2016 - 2/12/2016
Construction: 2/15/2016 - 11/30/2016
Paving: 1/4/2017 - 7/1/2017
Coating: 7/2/2017 - 8/1/2017
Off-road Equipment - used defaults
Trips and VMT - Using defaults.
On-road Fugitive Dust - Speed limit in surrounding area is 25 mph, resulting in the mean speed being 25 mph.
Demolition - No Demolition.
Grading - 4.2 acres to be disturbed for the proposed project.
Architectural Coating - Architectural Coating is 33,000SF new building and 8,000SF for remodeling portables
70 parking spaces to be restriped is ~28,000 SF
Vehicle Trips - As documented in the Program EIR, student vehicles traveling to and from west region elementary schools travel an average of 0.35 miles per
trip.
Trip rate: 510 AM Trips and 340 PM Trips per day, which totals to 850 trips/day. For a school with a new building size of 33,000 SF, that is 25.75 (=850/33)
trips/size/day.
Area Coating - Combined portable and new building space is 41,000 SF
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Assume area is watered 3x per day per SCAQMD guidelines
Energy Mitigation - Project requires 10% better than Title 24 and 20% lighting energy reduction according to LAUSD School Design Guide. The goal is for 50%100% of each new school's electricity on an existing campus to be provided by on site renewable energy.
Table Name
Column Name
Default Value
New Value
tblArchitecturalCoating
ConstArea_Nonresidential_Exterior
20,500.00
28,000.00
ConstArea_Nonresidential_Interior
61,500.00
41,000.00
tblAreaCoating
Area_Nonresidential_Exterior
20500
28000
Page 3 of 25
Date: 3/2/2015 6:05 PM
tblAreaCoating
Area_Nonresidential_Interior
61500
41000
tblConstructionPhase
NumDays
3.00
20.00
NumDays
6.00
10.00
NumDays
220.00
208.00
NumDays
10.00
128.00
NumDays
10.00
22.00
PhaseEndDate
1/29/2016
1/31/2016
PhaseEndDate
5/29/2017
7/1/2017
PhaseStartDate
2/13/2016
2/15/2016
PhaseStartDate
12/1/2016
1/4/2017
tblGrading
AcresOfGrading
5.00
4.20
tblGrading
AcresOfGrading
30.00
4.20
tblLandUse
LotAcreage
0.00
1.90
tblOnRoadDust
MeanVehicleSpeed
40.00
25.00
tblOnRoadDust
MeanVehicleSpeed
40.00
25.00
tblOnRoadDust
MeanVehicleSpeed
40.00
25.00
tblOnRoadDust
MeanVehicleSpeed
40.00
25.00
tblOnRoadDust
MeanVehicleSpeed
40.00
25.00
tblOnRoadDust
MeanVehicleSpeed
40.00
25.00
tblOnRoadDust
MeanVehicleSpeed
40.00
25.00
tblOnRoadDust
MeanVehicleSpeed
40.00
25.00
tblOnRoadDust
MeanVehicleSpeed
40.00
25.00
tblOnRoadDust
MeanVehicleSpeed
40.00
25.00
tblProjectCharacteristics
OperationalYear
2014
2017
tblRoadDust
MeanVehicleSpeed
40
25
tblSequestration
NumberOfNewTrees
0.00
5.00
tblVehicleTrips
CW_TL
16.60
0.35
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR
15.43
25.75
Page 4 of 25
Date: 3/2/2015 6:05 PM
2.0 Emissions Summary
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
Unmitigated Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Year
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
2016
3.8331
30.8686
20.3282
0.0289
6.5793
1.6682
8.2474
3.3880
1.5673
4.9227
0.0000
2,715.311
9
2,715.311
9
0.7534
0.0000
2,731.134
1
2017
36.7470
16.5380
12.9994
0.0198
1.0758
1.0245
1.2509
0.2680
0.9437
0.9882
0.0000
1,954.928
7
1,954.928
7
0.5437
0.0000
1,966.345
5
Total
40.5801
47.4066
33.3276
0.0487
7.6550
2.6927
9.4984
3.6560
2.5111
5.9109
0.0000
4,670.240
6
4,670.240
6
1.2971
0.0000
4,697.479
6
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Mitigated Construction
ROG
NOx
Year
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
lb/day
2016
3.8331
30.8686
20.3282
0.0289
2.6341
1.6682
4.3023
1.3394
1.5673
2.8741
0.0000
2,715.311
9
2,715.311
9
0.7534
0.0000
2,731.134
1
2017
36.7470
16.5380
12.9994
0.0198
1.0758
1.0245
1.2509
0.2680
0.9437
0.9882
0.0000
1,954.928
7
1,954.928
7
0.5437
0.0000
1,966.345
5
Total
40.5801
47.4066
33.3276
0.0487
3.7099
2.6927
5.5532
1.6074
2.5111
3.8623
0.0000
4,670.240
6
4,670.240
6
1.2971
0.0000
4,697.479
6
Percent
Reduction
Page 5 of 25
Date: 3/2/2015 6:05 PM
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
51.54
0.00
41.54
56.03
0.00
34.66
0.00
NBio-CO2 Total CO2
0.00
0.00
CH4
N20
CO2e
0.00
0.00
0.00
Page 6 of 25
Date: 3/2/2015 6:05 PM
2.2 Overall Operational
Unmitigated Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
Area
0.8728
3.0000e005
3.4300e003
0.0000
1.0000e005
1.0000e005
1.0000e005
1.0000e005
7.2200e003
7.2200e003
2.0000e005
7.6400e003
Energy
0.0106
0.0965
0.0811
5.8000e004
7.3400e003
7.3400e003
7.3400e003
7.3400e003
115.8324
115.8324
2.2200e003
Mobile
2.2048
3.0544
14.3380
0.0233
1.4145
0.0362
1.4508
0.3783
0.0333
0.4116
1,990.587
2
1,990.587
2
0.0914
Total
3.0882
3.1510
14.4225
0.0239
1.4145
0.0436
1.4581
0.3783
0.0407
0.4189
2,106.426
8
2,106.426
8
0.0936
2.1200e003
2,109.051
4
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
CH4
N2O
CO2e
2.1200e003
116.5373
1,992.506
4
Mitigated Operational
ROG
Category
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
lb/day
Area
0.8728
3.0000e005
3.4300e003
0.0000
1.0000e005
1.0000e005
1.0000e005
1.0000e005
7.2200e003
7.2200e003
2.0000e005
Energy
9.6600e003
0.0878
0.0738
5.3000e004
6.6800e003
6.6800e003
6.6800e003
6.6800e003
105.3979
105.3979
2.0200e003
Mobile
2.1918
2.9646
14.0041
0.0223
1.3438
0.0347
1.3786
0.3593
0.0320
0.3913
1,900.682
4
1,900.682
4
0.0880
Total
3.0743
3.0524
14.0813
0.0228
1.3438
0.0414
1.3852
0.3593
0.0387
0.3980
2,006.087
5
2,006.087
5
0.0901
7.6400e003
1.9300e003
106.0393
1,902.531
1
1.9300e003
2,008.578
1
Percent
Reduction
Page 7 of 25
Date: 3/2/2015 6:05 PM
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
0.45
3.13
2.37
4.64
5.00
4.89
5.00
5.00
4.94
4.99
0.00
NBio-CO2 Total CO2
4.76
4.76
CH4
N20
CO2e
3.80
8.96
4.76
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name
Phase Type
Start Date
End Date
Num Days
Week
Num Days
1
Site Preparation
Site Preparation
1/4/2016
1/31/2016
5
20
2
Grading
Grading
2/1/2016
2/12/2016
5
10
3
Building Construction
2/15/2016
11/30/2016
5
208
4
Paving
Paving
1/4/2017
7/1/2017
5
128
5
Architectural Coating
7/2/2017
8/1/2017
5
22
Phase Description
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 4.2
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 4.2
Acres of Paving: 0
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 41,000; Non-Residential Outdoor: 28,000 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name
Offroad Equipment Type
Page 8 of 25
Amount
Date: 3/2/2015 6:05 PM
Usage Hours
Horse Power
Load Factor
Site Preparation
Graders
1
8.00
174
0.41
Site Preparation
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
1
7.00
97
0.37
Site Preparation
Scrapers
1
8.00
361
0.48
Grading
Graders
1
8.00
174
0.41
Grading
Rubber Tired Dozers
1
8.00
255
0.40
Grading
2
7.00
97
0.37
Cranes
1
8.00
226
0.29
Forklifts
2
7.00
89
0.20
Generator Sets
1
8.00
84
0.74
1
6.00
97
0.37
Welders
3
8.00
46
0.45
Paving
Cement and Mortar Mixers
1
8.00
9
0.56
Paving
Pavers
1
8.00
125
0.42
Paving
Paving Equipment
1
8.00
130
0.36
Paving
Rollers
2
8.00
80
0.38
Paving
1
8.00
97
0.37
Air Compressors
1
6.00
78
0.48
Trips and VMT
Phase Name
Offroad Equipment
Count
Page 9 of 25
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Date: 3/2/2015 6:05 PM
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Hauling
Vehicle Class Vehicle Class
Site Preparation
3
8.00
0.00
0.00
14.70
6.90
20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Grading
4
10.00
0.00
0.00
14.70
6.90
20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
8
17.00
7.00
0.00
14.70
6.90
20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Paving
6
15.00
0.00
0.00
14.70
6.90
20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
1
3.00
0.00
0.00
14.70
6.90
20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
1
3.00
0.00
0.00
14.70
6.90
20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
1
3.00
0.00
0.00
14.70
6.90
20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
1
3.00
0.00
0.00
14.70
6.90
20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
1
3.00
0.00
0.00
14.70
6.90
20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
1
3.00
0.00
0.00
14.70
6.90
20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
Clean Paved Roads
Page 10 of 25
Date: 3/2/2015 6:05 PM
3.2 Site Preparation - 2016
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
Fugitive Dust
0.2227
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
0.0000
0.2227
1.5116
1.5116
0.0241
0.0000
0.0241
1.3907
1.3907
2,480.100
0
2,480.100
0
0.7481
2,495.809
9
2,480.100
0
2,480.100
0
0.7481
2,495.809
9
Off-Road
2.6992
30.8238
18.0600
0.0239
Total
2.6992
30.8238
18.0600
0.0239
0.2227
1.5116
1.7344
0.0241
1.3907
1.4148
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
0.0000
0.0000
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
Category
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
Hauling
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Vendor
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Worker
0.0356
0.0448
0.5550
1.1600e003
0.0894
8.5000e004
0.0903
0.0237
7.8000e004
0.0245
98.3217
98.3217
5.3500e003
98.4341
Total
0.0356
0.0448
0.5550
1.1600e003
0.0894
8.5000e004
0.0903
0.0237
7.8000e004
0.0245
98.3217
98.3217
5.3500e003
98.4341
Page 11 of 25
Date: 3/2/2015 6:05 PM
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
Fugitive Dust
0.0869
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
0.0000
0.0869
1.5116
1.5116
9.3800e003
0.0000
9.3800e003
0.0000
1.3907
1.3907
0.0000
2,480.100
0
2,480.100
0
0.7481
2,495.809
9
2,480.100
0
2,480.100
0
0.7481
2,495.809
9
Off-Road
2.6992
30.8238
18.0600
0.0239
Total
2.6992
30.8238
18.0600
0.0239
0.0869
1.5116
1.5985
9.3800e003
1.3907
1.4001
0.0000
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
0.0000
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
Category
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
Hauling
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Vendor
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Worker
0.0356
0.0448
0.5550
1.1600e003
0.0894
8.5000e004
0.0903
0.0237
7.8000e004
0.0245
98.3217
98.3217
5.3500e003
98.4341
Total
0.0356
0.0448
0.5550
1.1600e003
0.0894
8.5000e004
0.0903
0.0237
7.8000e004
0.0245
98.3217
98.3217
5.3500e003
98.4341
Page 12 of 25
Date: 3/2/2015 6:05 PM
3.3 Grading - 2016
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
Fugitive Dust
6.4675
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
0.0000
6.4675
1.6671
1.6671
3.3583
0.0000
3.3583
1.5337
1.5337
2,139.274
2
2,139.274
2
0.6453
2,152.825
1
2,139.274
2
2,139.274
2
0.6453
2,152.825
1
Off-Road
2.8530
29.9470
19.6345
0.0206
Total
2.8530
29.9470
19.6345
0.0206
6.4675
1.6671
8.1346
3.3583
1.5337
4.8921
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
0.0000
0.0000
ROG
NOx
CO
Category
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
Hauling
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Vendor
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Worker
0.0445
0.0561
0.6937
1.4500e003
0.1118
1.0600e003
0.1128
0.0296
9.7000e004
0.0306
122.9021
122.9021
6.6900e003
123.0426
Total
0.0445
0.0561
0.6937
1.4500e003
0.1118
1.0600e003
0.1128
0.0296
9.7000e004
0.0306
122.9021
122.9021
6.6900e003
123.0426
Page 13 of 25
Date: 3/2/2015 6:05 PM
3.3 Grading - 2016
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
Fugitive Dust
2.5223
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
0.0000
2.5223
1.6671
1.6671
1.3098
0.0000
1.3098
0.0000
1.5337
1.5337
0.0000
2,139.274
2
2,139.274
2
0.6453
2,152.825
1
2,139.274
2
2,139.274
2
0.6453
2,152.825
1
Off-Road
2.8530
29.9470
19.6345
0.0206
Total
2.8530
29.9470
19.6345
0.0206
2.5223
1.6671
4.1894
1.3098
1.5337
2.8435
0.0000
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
0.0000
ROG
NOx
CO
Category
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
Hauling
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Vendor
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Worker
0.0445
0.0561
0.6937
1.4500e003
0.1118
1.0600e003
0.1128
0.0296
9.7000e004
0.0306
122.9021
122.9021
6.6900e003
123.0426
Total
0.0445
0.0561
0.6937
1.4500e003
0.1118
1.0600e003
0.1128
0.0296
9.7000e004
0.0306
122.9021
122.9021
6.6900e003
123.0426
Page 14 of 25
Date: 3/2/2015 6:05 PM
3.4 Building Construction - 2016
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
Off-Road
3.6984
24.6320
16.7166
0.0249
1.6257
1.6257
1.5569
1.5569
2,352.223
9
2,352.223
9
0.5420
2,363.605
7
Total
3.6984
24.6320
16.7166
0.0249
1.6257
1.6257
1.5569
1.5569
2,352.223
9
2,352.223
9
0.5420
2,363.605
7
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Fugitive
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
Hauling
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Vendor
0.0590
0.6126
0.7117
1.5400e003
0.0437
9.5800e003
0.0532
0.0124
8.8100e003
0.0212
154.1544
154.1544
1.1300e003
154.1782
Worker
0.0757
0.0953
1.1793
2.4700e003
0.1900
1.8000e003
0.1918
0.0504
1.6500e003
0.0521
208.9336
208.9336
0.0114
209.1725
Total
0.1347
0.7079
1.8910
4.0100e003
0.2337
0.0114
0.2451
0.0628
0.0105
0.0733
363.0881
363.0881
0.0125
363.3507
Page 15 of 25
Date: 3/2/2015 6:05 PM
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
Off-Road
3.6984
24.6320
16.7166
0.0249
1.6257
1.6257
1.5569
1.5569
0.0000
2,352.223
9
2,352.223
9
0.5420
2,363.605
7
Total
3.6984
24.6320
16.7166
0.0249
1.6257
1.6257
1.5569
1.5569
0.0000
2,352.223
9
2,352.223
9
0.5420
2,363.605
7
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Fugitive
PM2.5
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
Hauling
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Vendor
0.0590
0.6126
0.7117
1.5400e003
0.0437
9.5800e003
0.0532
0.0124
8.8100e003
0.0212
154.1544
154.1544
1.1300e003
154.1782
Worker
0.0757
0.0953
1.1793
2.4700e003
0.1900
1.8000e003
0.1918
0.0504
1.6500e003
0.0521
208.9336
208.9336
0.0114
209.1725
Total
0.1347
0.7079
1.8910
4.0100e003
0.2337
0.0114
0.2451
0.0628
0.0105
0.0733
363.0881
363.0881
0.0125
363.3507
Page 16 of 25
Date: 3/2/2015 6:05 PM
3.5 Paving - 2017
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
Off-Road
1.6402
Paving
0.0000
Total
1.6402
16.4619
16.4619
12.0566
12.0566
0.0176
0.0176
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
1.0230
1.0230
0.9423
0.9423
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
1.0230
1.0230
0.9423
0.9423
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
1,777.474
5
1,777.474
5
0.5344
1,788.696
6
0.0000
1,777.474
5
1,777.474
5
0.0000
0.5344
1,788.696
6
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Fugitive
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
Hauling
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Vendor
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Worker
0.0600
0.0761
0.9428
2.1800e003
0.1677
1.5200e003
0.1692
0.0445
1.4000e003
0.0459
177.4541
177.4541
9.2800e003
177.6489
Total
0.0600
0.0761
0.9428
2.1800e003
0.1677
1.5200e003
0.1692
0.0445
1.4000e003
0.0459
177.4541
177.4541
9.2800e003
177.6489
Page 17 of 25
Date: 3/2/2015 6:05 PM
3.5 Paving - 2017
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
Off-Road
1.6402
Paving
0.0000
Total
1.6402
16.4619
16.4619
12.0566
12.0566
0.0176
0.0176
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
1.0230
1.0230
0.9423
0.9423
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
1.0230
1.0230
0.9423
0.9423
0.0000
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
1,777.474
5
1,777.474
5
0.5344
1,788.696
6
0.0000
1,777.474
5
1,777.474
5
0.0000
0.5344
1,788.696
6
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Fugitive
PM2.5
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
Hauling
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Vendor
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Worker
0.0600
0.0761
0.9428
2.1800e003
0.1677
1.5200e003
0.1692
0.0445
1.4000e003
0.0459
177.4541
177.4541
9.2800e003
177.6489
Total
0.0600
0.0761
0.9428
2.1800e003
0.1677
1.5200e003
0.1692
0.0445
1.4000e003
0.0459
177.4541
177.4541
9.2800e003
177.6489
Page 18 of 25
Date: 3/2/2015 6:05 PM
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2017
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
Archit. Coating
36.3426
Off-Road
0.3323
2.1850
1.8681
Total
36.6749
2.1850
1.8681
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
2.9700e003
0.1733
0.1733
0.1733
0.1733
281.4481
281.4481
0.0297
282.0721
2.9700e003
0.1733
0.1733
0.1733
0.1733
281.4481
281.4481
0.0297
282.0721
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Fugitive
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
Hauling
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Vendor
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Worker
0.0720
0.0913
1.1313
2.6200e003
1.0758
1.8200e003
1.0776
0.2680
1.6800e003
0.2697
212.9450
212.9450
0.0111
213.1787
Total
0.0720
0.0913
1.1313
2.6200e003
1.0758
1.8200e003
1.0776
0.2680
1.6800e003
0.2697
212.9450
212.9450
0.0111
213.1787
Page 19 of 25
Date: 3/2/2015 6:05 PM
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
Archit. Coating
36.3426
Off-Road
0.3323
2.1850
1.8681
Total
36.6749
2.1850
1.8681
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
2.9700e003
0.1733
0.1733
0.1733
0.1733
0.0000
281.4481
281.4481
0.0297
282.0721
2.9700e003
0.1733
0.1733
0.1733
0.1733
0.0000
281.4481
281.4481
0.0297
282.0721
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Fugitive
PM2.5
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
Hauling
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Vendor
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Worker
0.0720
0.0913
1.1313
2.6200e003
1.0758
1.8200e003
1.0776
0.2680
1.6800e003
0.2697
212.9450
212.9450
0.0111
213.1787
Total
0.0720
0.0913
1.1313
2.6200e003
1.0758
1.8200e003
1.0776
0.2680
1.6800e003
0.2697
212.9450
212.9450
0.0111
213.1787
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
Page 20 of 25
Date: 3/2/2015 6:05 PM
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
Provide Traffic Calming Measures
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Category
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
Mitigated
2.1918
2.9646
14.0041
0.0223
1.3438
0.0347
1.3786
0.3593
0.0320
0.3913
1,900.682
4
1,900.682
4
0.0880
1,902.531
1
Unmitigated
2.2048
3.0544
14.3380
0.0233
1.4145
0.0362
1.4508
0.3783
0.0333
0.4116
1,990.587
2
1,990.587
2
0.0914
1,992.506
4
4.2 Trip Summary Information
Average Daily Trip Rate
Land Use
Weekday
Saturday
Sunday
Elementary School
849.75
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
849.75
0.00
0.00
Unmitigated
Mitigated
Annual VMT
Annual VMT
475,796
452,006
475,796
452,006
4.3 Trip Type Information
Miles
Land Use
Trip %
H-W or C-W
H-S or C-C
Elementary School
0.35
8.40
6.90
65.00
16.60
8.40
6.90
0.00
LDA
0.532559
H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C
LDT1
LDT2
MDV
LHD1
LHD2
MHD
0.058242
0.178229
0.125155
0.038934
0.006273
0.016761
Trip Purpose %
H-O or C-NW
Primary
Diverted
Pass-by
30.00
5.00
63
25
12
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
HHD
0.032323
OBUS
UBUS
MCY
SBUS
0.002478
0.003154
0.003685
0.000544
MH
0.001663
Page 21 of 25
Date: 3/2/2015 6:05 PM
5.0
Energy Detail
4.4 Fleet Mix
Historical Energy Use: N
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Exceed Title 24
Install High Efficiency Lighting
Percent of Electricity Use Generated with Renewable Energy
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated
9.6600e003
0.0878
0.0738
5.3000e004
6.6800e003
6.6800e003
6.6800e003
6.6800e003
105.3979
105.3979
2.0200e003
1.9300e003
106.0393
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.0106
0.0965
0.0811
5.8000e004
7.3400e003
7.3400e003
7.3400e003
7.3400e003
115.8324
115.8324
2.2200e003
2.1200e003
116.5373
Page 22 of 25
Date: 3/2/2015 6:05 PM
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
kBTU/yr
User Defined
Recreational
0
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Elementary
School
984.575
0.0106
0.0965
0.0811
5.8000e004
7.3400e003
7.3400e003
7.3400e003
7.3400e003
115.8324
115.8324
2.2200e003
2.1200e003
116.5373
0.0106
0.0965
0.0811
5.8000e004
7.3400e003
7.3400e003
7.3400e003
7.3400e003
115.8324
115.8324
2.2200e003
2.1200e003
116.5373
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Total
lb/day
CH4
lb/day
Mitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
Fugitive
PM10
Fugitive
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
Land Use
kBTU/yr
User Defined
Recreational
0
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Elementary
School
0.895882
9.6600e003
0.0878
0.0738
5.3000e004
6.6800e003
6.6800e003
6.6800e003
6.6800e003
105.3979
105.3979
2.0200e003
1.9300e003
106.0393
9.6600e003
0.0878
0.0738
5.3000e004
6.6800e003
6.6800e003
6.6800e003
6.6800e003
105.3979
105.3979
2.0200e003
1.9300e003
106.0393
Total
lb/day
6.0 Area Detail
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
lb/day
Page 23 of 25
Date: 3/2/2015 6:05 PM
Use Low VOC Paint - Residential Interior
Use Low VOC Paint - Residential Exterior
Use Low VOC Paint - Non-Residential Interior
Use Low VOC Paint - Non-Residential Exterior
Use Low VOC Cleaning Supplies
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
Mitigated
0.8728
3.0000e005
3.4300e003
0.0000
1.0000e005
1.0000e005
1.0000e005
1.0000e005
7.2200e003
7.2200e003
2.0000e005
7.6400e003
Unmitigated
0.8728
3.0000e005
3.4300e003
0.0000
1.0000e005
1.0000e005
1.0000e005
1.0000e005
7.2200e003
7.2200e003
2.0000e005
7.6400e003
Page 24 of 25
Date: 3/2/2015 6:05 PM
6.2 Area by SubCategory
Unmitigated
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
SubCategory
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
Architectural
Coating
0.2191
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Consumer
Products
0.6534
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Landscaping
3.3000e004
3.0000e005
3.4300e003
0.0000
1.0000e005
1.0000e005
1.0000e005
1.0000e005
7.2200e003
7.2200e003
2.0000e005
7.6400e003
Total
0.8728
3.0000e005
3.4300e003
0.0000
1.0000e005
1.0000e005
1.0000e005
1.0000e005
7.2200e003
7.2200e003
2.0000e005
7.6400e003
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Mitigated
SubCategory
Fugitive
PM10
Fugitive
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
Architectural
Coating
0.2191
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Consumer
Products
0.6534
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Landscaping
3.3000e004
3.0000e005
3.4300e003
0.0000
1.0000e005
1.0000e005
1.0000e005
1.0000e005
7.2200e003
7.2200e003
2.0000e005
7.6400e003
Total
0.8728
3.0000e005
3.4300e003
0.0000
1.0000e005
1.0000e005
1.0000e005
1.0000e005
7.2200e003
7.2200e003
2.0000e005
7.6400e003
7.0 Water Detail
Page 25 of 25
Date: 3/2/2015 6:05 PM
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
8.0 Waste Detail
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type
10.0 Vegetation
Number
Hours/Day
Days/Year
Horse Power
Load Factor
Fuel Type
MARINA DEL REY ALTERNATIVE
Page 1 of 25
Date: 3/2/2015 5:33 PM
LAUSD Mandarin and English Dual Immersion School- Marina Del Rey Alternative
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
1.0 Project Characteristics
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses
Size
Metric
Lot Acreage
Floor Surface Area
Population
Elementary School
41.00
1000sqft
0.94
41,000.00
0
0.00
User Defined Unit
1.90
0.00
0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Urban
Wind Speed (m/s)
Climate Zone
11
Utility Company
Los Angeles Department of Water & Power
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
1227.89
CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
2.2
0.029
Precipitation Freq (Days)
33
Operational Year
2017
N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006
Page 2 of 25
Date: 3/2/2015 5:33 PM
Project Characteristics Land Use - Land Use - Recreation User Defined Unit - Proposed project alternative includes 10,000 SF of kinder play area and 1.7 acres of regular play area.
Construction Phase - Demo: No Demolition to take place.
Site Prep: 1/4/16 - 1/31/16
Grading: 2/1/2016 - 2/12/2016
Construction: 2/15/2016 - 11/30/2016
Paving: 1/4/2017 - 7/1/2017
Coating: 7/2/2017 - 8/1/2017
Trips and VMT - Using defaults.
On-road Fugitive Dust - Speed limit in surrounding area is 25 mph, resulting in the mean speed being 25 mph.
Demolition - No Demolition.
Grading - 4.2 acres to be disturbed for the proposed project alternative.
Architectural Coating - Building is 41,000 SF
Vehicle Trips - As documented in the Program EIR, student vehicles traveling to and from west region elementary schools travel an average of 0.35 miles per
trip.
Trip rate: 510 AM Trips and 340 PM Trips per day, which totals to 850 trips/day. For a school with a size of 41,000 SF, that is 20.73 (=850/41) trips/size/day.
Area Coating - Building is 41,000 SF
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Assume area is watered 3x per day per SCAQMD guidelines
Energy Mitigation - Project requires 10% better than Title 24 and 20% lighting energy reduction according to LAUSD School Design Guide. The goal is for 50%100% of each new school's electricity on an existing campus to be provided by on site renewable energy.
Table Name
Column Name
Default Value
New Value
ConstArea_Nonresidential_Exterior
20,500.00
19,600.00
ConstArea_Nonresidential_Interior
61,500.00
41,000.00
tblAreaCoating
Area_Nonresidential_Exterior
20500
19600
Page 3 of 25
Date: 3/2/2015 5:33 PM
tblAreaCoating
Area_Nonresidential_Interior
61500
41000
NumDays
3.00
20.00
NumDays
6.00
10.00
NumDays
220.00
208.00
NumDays
10.00
128.00
NumDays
10.00
22.00
PhaseEndDate
1/29/2016
1/31/2016
PhaseEndDate
5/29/2017
7/1/2017
PhaseStartDate
2/13/2016
2/15/2016
PhaseStartDate
12/1/2016
1/4/2017
tblGrading
AcresOfGrading
5.00
4.20
tblGrading
AcresOfGrading
30.00
4.20
tblLandUse
LotAcreage
0.00
1.90
tblOnRoadDust
MeanVehicleSpeed
40.00
25.00
tblOnRoadDust
MeanVehicleSpeed
40.00
25.00
tblOnRoadDust
MeanVehicleSpeed
40.00
25.00
tblOnRoadDust
MeanVehicleSpeed
40.00
25.00
tblOnRoadDust
MeanVehicleSpeed
40.00
25.00
tblOnRoadDust
MeanVehicleSpeed
40.00
25.00
tblOnRoadDust
MeanVehicleSpeed
40.00
25.00
tblOnRoadDust
MeanVehicleSpeed
40.00
25.00
tblOnRoadDust
MeanVehicleSpeed
40.00
25.00
tblOnRoadDust
MeanVehicleSpeed
40.00
25.00
tblProjectCharacteristics
OperationalYear
2014
2017
tblRoadDust
MeanVehicleSpeed
40
25
tblSequestration
NumberOfNewTrees
0.00
5.00
tblVehicleTrips
CW_TL
16.60
0.35
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR
15.43
20.73
Page 4 of 25
Date: 3/2/2015 5:33 PM
2.0 Emissions Summary
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
Unmitigated Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Year
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
2016
3.8331
30.8686
20.3282
0.0289
6.5793
1.6682
8.2474
3.3880
1.5673
4.9227
0.0000
2,715.311
9
2,715.311
9
0.7534
0.0000
2,731.134
1
2017
32.3227
16.5380
12.9994
0.0198
1.0758
1.0245
1.2509
0.2680
0.9437
0.9882
0.0000
1,954.928
7
1,954.928
7
0.5437
0.0000
1,966.345
5
Total
36.1558
47.4066
33.3276
0.0487
7.6550
2.6927
9.4984
3.6560
2.5111
5.9109
0.0000
4,670.240
6
4,670.240
6
1.2971
0.0000
4,697.479
6
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Mitigated Construction
ROG
NOx
Year
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
lb/day
2016
3.8331
30.8686
20.3282
0.0289
2.6341
1.6682
4.3023
1.3394
1.5673
2.8741
0.0000
2,715.311
9
2,715.311
9
0.7534
0.0000
2,731.134
1
2017
32.3227
16.5380
12.9994
0.0198
1.0758
1.0245
1.2509
0.2680
0.9437
0.9882
0.0000
1,954.928
7
1,954.928
7
0.5437
0.0000
1,966.345
5
Total
36.1558
47.4066
33.3276
0.0487
3.7099
2.6927
5.5532
1.6074
2.5111
3.8623
0.0000
4,670.240
6
4,670.240
6
1.2971
0.0000
4,697.479
6
Percent
Reduction
Page 5 of 25
Date: 3/2/2015 5:33 PM
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
51.54
0.00
41.54
56.03
0.00
34.66
0.00
NBio-CO2 Total CO2
0.00
0.00
CH4
N20
CO2e
0.00
0.00
0.00
Page 6 of 25
Date: 3/2/2015 5:33 PM
2.2 Overall Operational
Unmitigated Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
Area
1.0046
4.0000e005
4.2700e003
0.0000
2.0000e005
2.0000e005
2.0000e005
2.0000e005
8.9700e003
8.9700e003
2.0000e005
9.5000e003
Energy
0.0132
0.1199
0.1007
7.2000e004
9.1100e003
9.1100e003
9.1100e003
9.1100e003
143.9130
143.9130
2.7600e003
Mobile
2.2053
3.0551
14.3411
0.0233
1.4148
0.0362
1.4511
0.3783
0.0333
0.4117
1,991.008
8
1,991.008
8
0.0914
Total
3.2231
3.1751
14.4461
0.0241
1.4148
0.0454
1.4602
0.3783
0.0425
0.4208
2,134.930
8
2,134.930
8
0.0942
2.6400e003
2,137.726
8
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
CH4
N2O
CO2e
2.6400e003
144.7888
1,992.928
5
Mitigated Operational
ROG
Category
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
lb/day
Area
1.0046
4.0000e005
4.2700e003
0.0000
2.0000e005
2.0000e005
2.0000e005
2.0000e005
8.9700e003
8.9700e003
2.0000e005
Energy
0.0120
0.1091
0.0917
6.5000e004
8.2900e003
8.2900e003
8.2900e003
8.2900e003
130.9489
130.9489
2.5100e003
Mobile
2.1923
2.9652
14.0071
0.0223
1.3441
0.0348
1.3788
0.3594
0.0320
0.3914
1,901.085
0
1,901.085
0
0.0881
Total
3.2089
3.0744
14.1030
0.0229
1.3441
0.0431
1.3872
0.3594
0.0403
0.3997
2,032.042
9
2,032.042
9
0.0906
9.5000e003
2.4000e003
131.7459
1,902.934
1
2.4000e003
2,034.689
4
Percent
Reduction
Page 7 of 25
Date: 3/2/2015 5:33 PM
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
0.44
3.17
2.38
4.66
5.00
5.05
5.00
5.00
5.13
5.01
0.00
NBio-CO2 Total CO2
4.82
4.82
CH4
N20
CO2e
3.83
9.09
4.82
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name
Phase Type
Start Date
End Date
Num Days
Week
Num Days
1
Site Preparation
Site Preparation
1/4/2016
1/31/2016
5
20
2
Grading
Grading
2/1/2016
2/12/2016
5
10
3
2/15/2016
11/30/2016
5
208
4
Paving
Paving
1/4/2017
7/1/2017
5
128
5
7/2/2017
8/1/2017
5
22
Phase Description
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 4.2
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 4.2
Acres of Paving: 0
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 41,000; Non-Residential Outdoor: 19,600 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name
Offroad Equipment Type
Page 8 of 25
Amount
Date: 3/2/2015 5:33 PM
Usage Hours
Horse Power
Load Factor
Site Preparation
Graders
1
8.00
174
0.41
Site Preparation
1
7.00
97
0.37
Site Preparation
Scrapers
1
8.00
361
0.48
Grading
Graders
1
8.00
174
0.41
Grading
Rubber Tired Dozers
1
8.00
255
0.40
Grading
2
7.00
97
0.37
Cranes
1
8.00
226
0.29
Forklifts
2
7.00
89
0.20
Generator Sets
1
8.00
84
0.74
1
6.00
97
0.37
Welders
3
8.00
46
0.45
Paving
Cement and Mortar Mixers
1
8.00
9
0.56
Paving
Pavers
1
8.00
125
0.42
Paving
Paving Equipment
1
8.00
130
0.36
Paving
Rollers
2
8.00
80
0.38
Paving
1
8.00
97
0.37
Air Compressors
1
6.00
78
0.48
Trips and VMT
Phase Name
Offroad Equipment
Count
Page 9 of 25
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Date: 3/2/2015 5:33 PM
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Hauling
Vehicle Class Vehicle Class
Site Preparation
3
8.00
0.00
0.00
14.70
6.90
20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Grading
4
10.00
0.00
0.00
14.70
6.90
20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
8
17.00
7.00
0.00
14.70
6.90
20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Paving
6
15.00
0.00
0.00
14.70
6.90
20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
1
3.00
0.00
0.00
14.70
6.90
20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
1
3.00
0.00
0.00
14.70
6.90
20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
1
3.00
0.00
0.00
14.70
6.90
20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
1
3.00
0.00
0.00
14.70
6.90
20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
1
3.00
0.00
0.00
14.70
6.90
20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
1
3.00
0.00
0.00
14.70
6.90
20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
Clean Paved Roads
Page 10 of 25
Date: 3/2/2015 5:33 PM
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
Fugitive Dust
0.2227
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
0.0000
0.2227
1.5116
1.5116
0.0241
0.0000
0.0241
1.3907
1.3907
2,480.100
0
2,480.100
0
0.7481
2,495.809
9
2,480.100
0
2,480.100
0
0.7481
2,495.809
9
Off-Road
2.6992
30.8238
18.0600
0.0239
Total
2.6992
30.8238
18.0600
0.0239
0.2227
1.5116
1.7344
0.0241
1.3907
1.4148
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
0.0000
0.0000
ROG
NOx
CO
Category
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
Hauling
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Vendor
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Worker
0.0356
0.0448
0.5550
1.1600e003
0.0894
8.5000e004
0.0903
0.0237
7.8000e004
0.0245
98.3217
98.3217
5.3500e003
98.4341
Total
0.0356
0.0448
0.5550
1.1600e003
0.0894
8.5000e004
0.0903
0.0237
7.8000e004
0.0245
98.3217
98.3217
5.3500e003
98.4341
Page 11 of 25
Date: 3/2/2015 5:33 PM
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
Fugitive Dust
0.0869
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
0.0000
0.0869
1.5116
1.5116
9.3800e003
0.0000
9.3800e003
0.0000
1.3907
1.3907
0.0000
2,480.100
0
2,480.100
0
0.7481
2,495.809
9
2,480.100
0
2,480.100
0
0.7481
2,495.809
9
Off-Road
2.6992
30.8238
18.0600
0.0239
Total
2.6992
30.8238
18.0600
0.0239
0.0869
1.5116
1.5985
9.3800e003
1.3907
1.4001
0.0000
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
0.0000
ROG
NOx
CO
Category
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
Hauling
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Vendor
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Worker
0.0356
0.0448
0.5550
1.1600e003
0.0894
8.5000e004
0.0903
0.0237
7.8000e004
0.0245
98.3217
98.3217
5.3500e003
98.4341
Total
0.0356
0.0448
0.5550
1.1600e003
0.0894
8.5000e004
0.0903
0.0237
7.8000e004
0.0245
98.3217
98.3217
5.3500e003
98.4341
Page 12 of 25
Date: 3/2/2015 5:33 PM
3.3 Grading - 2016
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
Fugitive Dust
6.4675
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
0.0000
6.4675
1.6671
1.6671
3.3583
0.0000
3.3583
1.5337
1.5337
2,139.274
2
2,139.274
2
0.6453
2,152.825
1
2,139.274
2
2,139.274
2
0.6453
2,152.825
1
Off-Road
2.8530
29.9470
19.6345
0.0206
Total
2.8530
29.9470
19.6345
0.0206
6.4675
1.6671
8.1346
3.3583
1.5337
4.8921
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
0.0000
0.0000
ROG
NOx
CO
Category
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
Hauling
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Vendor
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Worker
0.0445
0.0561
0.6937
1.4500e003
0.1118
1.0600e003
0.1128
0.0296
9.7000e004
0.0306
122.9021
122.9021
6.6900e003
123.0426
Total
0.0445
0.0561
0.6937
1.4500e003
0.1118
1.0600e003
0.1128
0.0296
9.7000e004
0.0306
122.9021
122.9021
6.6900e003
123.0426
Page 13 of 25
Date: 3/2/2015 5:33 PM
3.3 Grading - 2016
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
Fugitive Dust
2.5223
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
0.0000
2.5223
1.6671
1.6671
1.3098
0.0000
1.3098
0.0000
1.5337
1.5337
0.0000
2,139.274
2
2,139.274
2
0.6453
2,152.825
1
2,139.274
2
2,139.274
2
0.6453
2,152.825
1
Off-Road
2.8530
29.9470
19.6345
0.0206
Total
2.8530
29.9470
19.6345
0.0206
2.5223
1.6671
4.1894
1.3098
1.5337
2.8435
0.0000
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
0.0000
ROG
NOx
CO
Category
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
Hauling
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Vendor
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Worker
0.0445
0.0561
0.6937
1.4500e003
0.1118
1.0600e003
0.1128
0.0296
9.7000e004
0.0306
122.9021
122.9021
6.6900e003
123.0426
Total
0.0445
0.0561
0.6937
1.4500e003
0.1118
1.0600e003
0.1128
0.0296
9.7000e004
0.0306
122.9021
122.9021
6.6900e003
123.0426
Page 14 of 25
Date: 3/2/2015 5:33 PM
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
Off-Road
3.6984
24.6320
16.7166
0.0249
1.6257
1.6257
1.5569
1.5569
2,352.223
9
2,352.223
9
0.5420
2,363.605
7
Total
3.6984
24.6320
16.7166
0.0249
1.6257
1.6257
1.5569
1.5569
2,352.223
9
2,352.223
9
0.5420
2,363.605
7
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Fugitive
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
Hauling
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Vendor
0.0590
0.6126
0.7117
1.5400e003
0.0437
9.5800e003
0.0532
0.0124
8.8100e003
0.0212
154.1544
154.1544
1.1300e003
154.1782
Worker
0.0757
0.0953
1.1793
2.4700e003
0.1900
1.8000e003
0.1918
0.0504
1.6500e003
0.0521
208.9336
208.9336
0.0114
209.1725
Total
0.1347
0.7079
1.8910
4.0100e003
0.2337
0.0114
0.2451
0.0628
0.0105
0.0733
363.0881
363.0881
0.0125
363.3507
Page 15 of 25
Date: 3/2/2015 5:33 PM
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
Off-Road
3.6984
24.6320
16.7166
0.0249
1.6257
1.6257
1.5569
1.5569
0.0000
2,352.223
9
2,352.223
9
0.5420
2,363.605
7
Total
3.6984
24.6320
16.7166
0.0249
1.6257
1.6257
1.5569
1.5569
0.0000
2,352.223
9
2,352.223
9
0.5420
2,363.605
7
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Fugitive
PM2.5
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
Hauling
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Vendor
0.0590
0.6126
0.7117
1.5400e003
0.0437
9.5800e003
0.0532
0.0124
8.8100e003
0.0212
154.1544
154.1544
1.1300e003
154.1782
Worker
0.0757
0.0953
1.1793
2.4700e003
0.1900
1.8000e003
0.1918
0.0504
1.6500e003
0.0521
208.9336
208.9336
0.0114
209.1725
Total
0.1347
0.7079
1.8910
4.0100e003
0.2337
0.0114
0.2451
0.0628
0.0105
0.0733
363.0881
363.0881
0.0125
363.3507
Page 16 of 25
Date: 3/2/2015 5:33 PM
3.5 Paving - 2017
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
Off-Road
1.6402
Paving
0.0000
Total
1.6402
16.4619
16.4619
12.0566
12.0566
0.0176
0.0176
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
1.0230
1.0230
0.9423
0.9423
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
1.0230
1.0230
0.9423
0.9423
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
1,777.474
5
1,777.474
5
0.5344
1,788.696
6
0.0000
1,777.474
5
1,777.474
5
0.0000
0.5344
1,788.696
6
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Fugitive
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
Hauling
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Vendor
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Worker
0.0600
0.0761
0.9428
2.1800e003
0.1677
1.5200e003
0.1692
0.0445
1.4000e003
0.0459
177.4541
177.4541
9.2800e003
177.6489
Total
0.0600
0.0761
0.9428
2.1800e003
0.1677
1.5200e003
0.1692
0.0445
1.4000e003
0.0459
177.4541
177.4541
9.2800e003
177.6489
Page 17 of 25
Date: 3/2/2015 5:33 PM
3.5 Paving - 2017
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
Off-Road
1.6402
Paving
0.0000
Total
1.6402
16.4619
16.4619
12.0566
12.0566
0.0176
0.0176
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
1.0230
1.0230
0.9423
0.9423
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
1.0230
1.0230
0.9423
0.9423
0.0000
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
1,777.474
5
1,777.474
5
0.5344
1,788.696
6
0.0000
1,777.474
5
1,777.474
5
0.0000
0.5344
1,788.696
6
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Fugitive
PM2.5
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
Hauling
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Vendor
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Worker
0.0600
0.0761
0.9428
2.1800e003
0.1677
1.5200e003
0.1692
0.0445
1.4000e003
0.0459
177.4541
177.4541
9.2800e003
177.6489
Total
0.0600
0.0761
0.9428
2.1800e003
0.1677
1.5200e003
0.1692
0.0445
1.4000e003
0.0459
177.4541
177.4541
9.2800e003
177.6489
Page 18 of 25
Date: 3/2/2015 5:33 PM
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
Archit. Coating
31.9183
Off-Road
0.3323
2.1850
1.8681
Total
32.2506
2.1850
1.8681
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
2.9700e003
0.1733
0.1733
0.1733
0.1733
281.4481
281.4481
0.0297
282.0721
2.9700e003
0.1733
0.1733
0.1733
0.1733
281.4481
281.4481
0.0297
282.0721
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Fugitive
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
Hauling
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Vendor
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Worker
0.0720
0.0913
1.1313
2.6200e003
1.0758
1.8200e003
1.0776
0.2680
1.6800e003
0.2697
212.9450
212.9450
0.0111
213.1787
Total
0.0720
0.0913
1.1313
2.6200e003
1.0758
1.8200e003
1.0776
0.2680
1.6800e003
0.2697
212.9450
212.9450
0.0111
213.1787
Page 19 of 25
Date: 3/2/2015 5:33 PM
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
Archit. Coating
31.9183
Off-Road
0.3323
2.1850
1.8681
Total
32.2506
2.1850
1.8681
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
2.9700e003
0.1733
0.1733
0.1733
0.1733
0.0000
281.4481
281.4481
0.0297
282.0721
2.9700e003
0.1733
0.1733
0.1733
0.1733
0.0000
281.4481
281.4481
0.0297
282.0721
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Fugitive
PM2.5
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
Hauling
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Vendor
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Worker
0.0720
0.0913
1.1313
2.6200e003
1.0758
1.8200e003
1.0776
0.2680
1.6800e003
0.2697
212.9450
212.9450
0.0111
213.1787
Total
0.0720
0.0913
1.1313
2.6200e003
1.0758
1.8200e003
1.0776
0.2680
1.6800e003
0.2697
212.9450
212.9450
0.0111
213.1787
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
Page 20 of 25
Date: 3/2/2015 5:33 PM
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
Provide Traffic Calming Measures
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Category
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
Mitigated
2.1923
2.9652
14.0071
0.0223
1.3441
0.0348
1.3788
0.3594
0.0320
0.3914
1,901.085
0
1,901.085
0
0.0881
1,902.934
1
Unmitigated
2.2053
3.0551
14.3411
0.0233
1.4148
0.0362
1.4511
0.3783
0.0333
0.4117
1,991.008
8
1,991.008
8
0.0914
1,992.928
5
4.2 Trip Summary Information
Average Daily Trip Rate
Land Use
Weekday
Saturday
Sunday
Elementary School
849.93
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
849.93
0.00
0.00
Unmitigated
Mitigated
Annual VMT
Annual VMT
475,897
452,102
475,897
452,102
4.3 Trip Type Information
Miles
Land Use
Trip %
H-W or C-W
H-S or C-C
Elementary School
0.35
8.40
6.90
65.00
16.60
8.40
6.90
0.00
LDA
0.532559
H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C
LDT1
LDT2
MDV
LHD1
LHD2
MHD
0.058242
0.178229
0.125155
0.038934
0.006273
0.016761
Trip Purpose %
H-O or C-NW
Primary
Diverted
Pass-by
30.00
5.00
63
25
12
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
HHD
0.032323
OBUS
UBUS
MCY
SBUS
0.002478
0.003154
0.003685
0.000544
MH
0.001663
Page 21 of 25
Date: 3/2/2015 5:33 PM
5.0
Energy Detail
4.4 Fleet Mix
Historical Energy Use: N
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Exceed Title 24
Install High Efficiency Lighting
Percent of Electricity Use Generated with Renewable Energy
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.0120
0.1091
0.0917
6.5000e004
8.2900e003
8.2900e003
8.2900e003
8.2900e003
130.9489
130.9489
2.5100e003
2.4000e003
131.7459
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.0132
0.1199
0.1007
7.2000e004
9.1100e003
9.1100e003
9.1100e003
9.1100e003
143.9130
143.9130
2.7600e003
2.6400e003
144.7888
Page 22 of 25
Date: 3/2/2015 5:33 PM
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
kBTU/yr
User Defined
Recreational
0
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Elementary
School
1223.26
0.0132
0.1199
0.1007
7.2000e004
9.1100e003
9.1100e003
9.1100e003
9.1100e003
143.9130
143.9130
2.7600e003
2.6400e003
144.7888
0.0132
0.1199
0.1007
7.2000e004
9.1100e003
9.1100e003
9.1100e003
9.1100e003
143.9130
143.9130
2.7600e003
2.6400e003
144.7888
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Total
lb/day
CH4
lb/day
Mitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
Fugitive
PM10
Fugitive
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
Land Use
kBTU/yr
User Defined
Recreational
0
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Elementary
School
1.11307
0.0120
0.1091
0.0917
6.5000e004
8.2900e003
8.2900e003
8.2900e003
8.2900e003
130.9489
130.9489
2.5100e003
2.4000e003
131.7459
0.0120
0.1091
0.0917
6.5000e004
8.2900e003
8.2900e003
8.2900e003
8.2900e003
130.9489
130.9489
2.5100e003
2.4000e003
131.7459
Total
lb/day
6.0 Area Detail
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
lb/day
Page 23 of 25
Date: 3/2/2015 5:33 PM
Use Low VOC Paint - Residential Interior
Use Low VOC Paint - Residential Exterior
Use Low VOC Paint - Non-Residential Interior
Use Low VOC Paint - Non-Residential Exterior
Use Low VOC Cleaning Supplies
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
Mitigated
1.0046
4.0000e005
4.2700e003
0.0000
2.0000e005
2.0000e005
2.0000e005
2.0000e005
8.9700e003
8.9700e003
2.0000e005
9.5000e003
Unmitigated
1.0046
4.0000e005
4.2700e003
0.0000
2.0000e005
2.0000e005
2.0000e005
2.0000e005
8.9700e003
8.9700e003
2.0000e005
9.5000e003
Page 24 of 25
Date: 3/2/2015 5:33 PM
6.2 Area by SubCategory
Unmitigated
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
SubCategory
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
Architectural
Coating
0.1924
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Consumer
Products
0.8118
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Landscaping
4.1000e004
4.0000e005
4.2700e003
0.0000
2.0000e005
2.0000e005
2.0000e005
2.0000e005
8.9700e003
8.9700e003
2.0000e005
9.5000e003
Total
1.0046
4.0000e005
4.2700e003
0.0000
2.0000e005
2.0000e005
2.0000e005
2.0000e005
8.9700e003
8.9700e003
2.0000e005
9.5000e003
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Mitigated
SubCategory
Fugitive
PM10
Fugitive
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
Architectural
Coating
0.1924
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Consumer
Products
0.8118
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Landscaping
4.1000e004
4.0000e005
4.2700e003
0.0000
2.0000e005
2.0000e005
2.0000e005
2.0000e005
8.9700e003
8.9700e003
2.0000e005
9.5000e003
Total
1.0046
4.0000e005
4.2700e003
0.0000
2.0000e005
2.0000e005
2.0000e005
2.0000e005
8.9700e003
8.9700e003
2.0000e005
9.5000e003
7.0 Water Detail
Page 25 of 25
Date: 3/2/2015 5:33 PM
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
8.0 Waste Detail
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type
10.0 Vegetation
Number
Hours/Day
Days/Year
Horse Power
Load Factor
Fuel Type
APPENDIX D
HISTORIC RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX D
HISTORIC RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
December 12, 2014
Job Number: 1498-019
Proposed Mandarin and English Dual-Language Immersion
Elementary School Project
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
2.6
1498-019.M02
SUBJECT:
Historic Resources Assessment for Mark Twain Middle School
IMAGES:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Location Map
Campus Site Plan
Entrance to Campus
Main Building
Open Space between Classroom Buildings and Connecting
Corridors
Typical Classroom Building
Physical Education Building
Auditorium
Central Quad
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Memorandum for the Record (MFR) documents information related to the
results of a historical resources assessment of Mark Twain Middle School. Opened
in 1949, Mark Twain Middle School is located in the Palms – Mar Vista – Del Rey
community of Los Angeles. The school facility was evaluated previously under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was recommended for
reevaluation through survey.1 The recent 2014 Los Angeles Unified School District
(LAUSD) Historic Resources Inventory prepared by Sapphos Environmental, Inc. did
not evaluate this campus,2 and the SurveyLA project has not recorded the school.3
Sapphos Environmental, Inc. was contracted by LAUSD to provide a historic
resource assessment of the campus in advance of the proposed project. Ms. Marilyn
Novell conducted the background research, site reconnaissance, and evaluations
and prepared this MFR. As a result of this work, Sapphos Environmental, Inc. has
concluded that the campus of Mark Twin Middle School is not a historical resource
as defined by CEQA. As such, any proposed improvements and/or constructionrelated activities will result in no significant impacts to historical resources pursuant
to CEQA.
1
Getty Research Institute. n.d. Phase 1 and 2 LAUSD Historic Resources Surveys, 2001-2004. Los
Angeles, CA.
2
Sapphos Environmental, Inc. March 2014. Los Angeles Unified School District Historic Resources
Survey. Pasadena, CA.
3
Los Angeles Historic Resources Survey (SurveyLA). 2010-present. Office of Historic Resources,
Department of City Planning, City of Los Angeles.
BACKGROUND
Sapphos Environmental, Inc. was contracted to provide a historic resources assessment of Mark
Twain Middle School. The assessment provides a review of the campus in accordance with CEQA.
Mark Twain Middle School was surveyed previously and evaluated as 5S3 (appears to be
individually eligible for local listing or designation through survey evaluation).4
According to LAUSD pre-planning data and background research, the campus core of Mark Twain
Middle School was built primarily in 1949, with later additions in 1951 and 1954. 5,6 When the
school opened in September 1949, it was called Venice Junior High School; the school asked for a
name change to Mark Twain Junior High School shortly thereafter.7
The campus was designed by architects Gordon G. Kaufmann and J. E. (Jesse) Stanton; E. C. Nesser
served as the contractor. 8 Kaufmann was a high-profile Southern California area architect who
worked in several styles over his career. His early Mediterranean Revival projects include the
Scripps College campus in Claremont in the late 1920s. Working in concrete, he later became
known for his massive streamlined Art Deco projects, including Boulder (Hoover) Dam (1936) and
the Los Angeles Times Building (1935), as well as more delicate treatments such as Santa Anita
Park racetrack (1934) and the Hollywood Palladium (1940).9
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
This historical resources assessment is designed to facilitate compliance with CEQA, which
requires lead agencies to consider the potential effects of proposed projects on historical resources.
CEQA identifies a historical resource as a property that is listed in—or is eligible for listing in—the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or
local registers. NRHP-listed properties are automatically included in the CRHR. The criteria for
both are similar and described below, with the NRHP letter (A, B, C, and D) followed by the
corresponding CRHR number (1, 2, 3, and 4).
To qualify as a historical resource under CEQA, a resource must be significant at the local, state, or
national level under one or more of the following criteria:
4
A/1:
For an association with events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or
the United States (NRHP Criterion A; CRHR Criterion 1);
B/2:
For an association with the lives of persons important to local, California, or
national history (NRHP Criterion B; CRHR Criterion 2);
C/3:
As an embodiment of the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or
method of construction, representative of the work of a master or high artistic
values (NRHP Criterion C; CRHR Criterion 3); or
Getty Research Institute. n.d. Phase 1 and 2 LAUSD historic resources surveys, 2001-2004. Los Angeles, CA.
5
Mark Twain Middle School: Campus Pre-Planning Survey. Accessed 20 September 2014. Available at:
http://mo.laschools.org/planlausd/content/?crit=surveys#s2
6
“Contracts Awarded for Two Schools Total $1,174,571.” 21 July 1950. Los Angeles Times.
7
“Venice Junior High Name Change Approved.” 13 January 1950. Los Angeles Times.
8
“Expansion Under Way at Mark Twain School.” 17 December 1950. Los Angeles Times.
9
Pacific Coast Architecture Database. Accessed 2 October 2014. Available at: https://digital.lib.washington.edu/
Proposed Mandarin and English Dual-Language Immersion Elementary School Project
Historic Resources Assessment
December 12, 2014 (First Screen Check)
W:\PROJECTS\1498\1498-019\Documents\DEIR\Historic Resources Assessment MFR.doc
Page 2
D/4:
Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or
history of the local area, California, or the nation (NRHP Criterion D; CRHR
Criterion 4).
There is no specific age threshold for CRHR eligibility; rather, the regulations specify that enough
time must have passed for a property to be evaluated within its historic context.
Resources eligible for listing in the CRHR must retain enough of their historic character or
appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their
significance. It is possible that resources that may not retain sufficient integrity for listing in the
NRHP may still be eligible for the CRHR. The evaluation of integrity is based on how a property’s
physical features and attributes tell the story of its historic significance. The NRHP has defined
seven aspects of historic integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and
association.10
SURVEY METHODS
At the request of LAUSD, Sapphos Environmental, Inc. conducted an on-campus reconnaissance
survey of the Mark Twain Middle School campus to determine whether it appears eligible for the
CRHR or the NRHP. Digital photographs were taken to assist and illustrate the analysis. A Sapphos
Environmental, Inc. Historic Resources Coordinator (Ms. Marilyn Novell) also conducted in-house,
campus-specific research, with a focus on the history of the school, architects/designers or
contractors involved in its construction, and significant events or people associated with the
school. This work was used to draw on the many available primary and secondary sources,
including earlier surveys, historic maps, books, newspaper databases, journal articles, available
architectural and engineering drawings, Internet sources, the SurveyLA Historic Context
Statement,11 the LAUSD Historic Context Statement,12 the historic Los Angeles Times database, and
a campus-wide pre-planning survey available on the LAUSD website.13
PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
Mark Twain Middle School is located at 2224 Walgrove Avenue in the Palms – Mar Vista – Del
Rey community of Los Angeles. The campus is bounded by Victoria Avenue to the northwest,
Lucille Avenue to the southeast, the Beethoven Street Elementary School campus to the northeast,
and Walgrove Avenue to the southwest (Image 1, Location Map). The surrounding neighborhood is
predominantly single-family residential with a church complex across Walgrove Avenue from the
school.
10
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. [1990] Revised 1997. “How to Apply the National Register
Criteria for Evaluation.” National Register Bulletin 15. Washington, DC.
11
Historic Context Summary Tables published by the City of Los Angeles Office of Historic Resources. Accessed 25 June
2014. Available at: http://preservation.lacity.org/news/surveyla-historic-context-summary-tablespublished
12
Los Angeles Unified School District. 2014. Los Angeles Unified School District Historic Context Statement, 1870 to
1969. Prepared by Sapphos Environmental, Inc., Pasadena, CA.
13
PlanLAUSD. Accessed 20 March 2014. Master planning surveys and aerial photos. Available at:
Page 3
Image 1. Location Map
The campus site plan consists of a large main building with two wings enclosing a central grassy
quadrangle and housing administrative offices, classrooms, and the school library (Image 2,
Campus Site Plan). Separate auditorium, industrial arts building, cafeteria, and physical education
buildings are dispersed throughout the campus. Freestanding single-loaded classroom buildings are
grouped toward the northwest and northeast boundaries of the campus.
Image 2. Campus Site Plan
The campus buildings form a unified site plan with consistent architectural style throughout. All of
the buildings have flat or low-pitched shed roofs and are one or one-and-a-half stories in height.
Exterior surfaces are clad in stucco over what appears to be concrete block, with variegated rosecolored brick used for planters and piers near the entrance and occasionally throughout the
campus. Repeated motifs include a grid pattern, vertical projecting piers, and plain projecting
window surrounds. The grid pattern is apparent in the window groupings and in a punched-out
Page 4
screen near the library. Vertical projecting piers are used most noticeably at the entrance to the
auditorium, at both elevations of the physical education building, and at the cafeteria. The piers are
typically of smooth stucco, although a few are faced with brick. The projecting window surrounds
defined window groupings throughout the campus.
Main Building
The main building is composed of two long double-loaded wings set at right angles to one another.
Administrative offices and classrooms occupy the wing at the front of the campus on Walgrove
Avenue, and the other wing is devoted to arts and sciences (Image 3, Entrance to Campus; Image
4, Main Building). A plain stucco-clad tower rises above the building at the juncture of the two
wings. A flat pop-up roof extends the length of each wing, with a series of clerestory windows on
the sides admitting light and air to the hallways and rooms below. The clerestories are composed
of discrete groups of glass blocks, each with a central operable narrow awning-type window. At the
street elevation is a series of double-hung wood sash windows inset in groups of three and with
simple projecting surrounds extending the length of the building. At the quad side are groups of
awning-type windows; at the southeast wing, a central door opening onto a patio is included in
each grouping.
Image 3. Entrance to Campus, west perspective
Source: Sapphos Environmental, Inc., 2 October 2014
Page 5
Image 4. Main Building, viewed from central quad, east perspective
Classroom Buildings
The majority of the classrooms are located in small single-loaded buildings clustered in one section
of the campus and positioned with ample space between (Image 5, Open Space between
Classroom Buildings and Connecting Corridors; Image 6, Typical Classroom Building). The stuccoclad buildings are connected by flat-roofed corridors supported by slender metal poles positioned
below clerestory windows. The shed roofs have a shallow overhang at the back side of the
classrooms, where double-hung sash windows are placed in groups of six.
Image 5. Open Space between Classroom Buildings and
Connecting Corridors, southwest perspective
Page 6
Image 6. Typical Classroom Building, south perspective
Physical Education Building
The Physical Education Building is arguably the building that most reflects the sensibilities of the
Art Deco style (Image 7, Physical Education Building). The building displays clean, simple lines
and a striking barrel-vaulted roof. At the southeast elevation toward the playground, strongly
projecting piers frame a series of windows arranged in a grid pattern. At the northwest elevation
toward campus, the curve of the barrel vault is emphasized by a projecting frame and a broad
expanse of stucco with no windows.
Image 7. Physical Education Building, southeast elevation
Page 7
Auditorium
Located at the western corner of the campus, the one-and-a-half-story Auditorium displays a
smooth stucco surface and a projecting canopy supported by plain rectangular stucco piers at the
street-side entrance (Image 8, Auditorium).
Image 8. Auditorium, southwest elevation
Landscaping
The landscaping in the interior of the campus is notable for its formality. In keeping with the
symmetry of the buildings, mature trees are intentionally aligned and regularly spaced in the areas
between classroom buildings and in the central quad (Image 9, Central Quad). Straight walkways
line the quad and provide circulation throughout the campus.
Page 8
Image 9. Central Quad, viewed from main building,
showing alignment of trees, northwest perspective
EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANCE
This investigation concluded that the Mark Twain Middle School campus is not a historical
resource as defined by CEQA. Moreover, the individual buildings, objects, and structures,
including the landscaping, are not historical resources as defined by CEQA and as outlined in the
National Park Service guidelines for multiple property documentation.14
Although Mark Twain Middle School is technically a postwar campus, when viewed through the
lens of the contexts defined by the LAUSD Historic Context Statement, it appears to mark a
transition between early experiments in modernism and the school types arising out of the rapid
postwar expansion.15 Architecturally, some of the Art Deco elements of the campus, and for which
the principal architect was known, are more typical of earlier campuses, specifically those falling
under the theme of Public Schools and the LAUSD, 1876–1980, sub-theme of Post-1933 Long
Beach Earthquake, 1933–1945, as defined in the Historic Context Statement for SurveyLA.16 The
strong columnar elements are also suggestive of the institutional instance of a slightly later style
known as New Formalism (Architecture and Engineering, 1850–1980; sub-context: L.A.
Modernism, 1919–1980; theme: Post-War Modernism, 1946–1976; sub-theme: New Formalism,
1955–1976).17
14
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 1999. “How to Complete the National Register Multiple
Property Documentation Form.” National Register Bulletin No. 16B. Washington, DC.
15
Los Angeles Unified School District. 2014. Los Angeles Unified School District Historic Context Statement. Prepared
by: Sapphos Environmental, Inc., Pasadena, CA.
16
17
Page 9
Character-defining/associative features apparent at the Mark Twain Middle School campus that are
atypical of a postwar school include a main administration building with “separate additional
buildings for cafeterias, auditoriums, gymnasiums, and classrooms.” 18 The monumentality of the
tall tower at the intersection of the two wings of the main building and the muscularity of the
Physical Education Building suggest an industrial sensibility such as practiced during the earlier
New Deal era.
In general, although the simple, geometric volumes, flat roofs, lack of historicism, and minimal
ornamentation of the campus buildings are qualities shared with Mid-Century Modernism, the
campus displays a symmetry and formalism suggestive of an earlier era. Doors are often centered
on walls, and windows are generally placed in balanced groups. The relationship of indoors to
outdoors that is so important in Mid-Century Modern architecture is less apparent at this campus.
Mature trees in the quad and between classroom buildings are planted in regularly spaced rows
rather than in naturalistic groupings. Rather than orienting the classroom buildings and windows to
take advantage of sun and shade, classroom buildings at Mark Twain Middle School are sited in
various directions. Windows throughout the campus are relatively small, occupying 50 percent of
the wall space or less.
Although some windows have been replaced with air conditioning units throughout the campus,
the clerestory windows in the classroom buildings have been covered over, and some doors have
been replaced, the campus retains integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship,
and feeling, as defined by the National Park Service.19 However, Mark Twain Middle School is not
an exceptional example of any specific architectural style. Kaufmann was an important regional
architect, but the campus was among his minor works. The campus is not associated with lives of
persons significant in the past or with events that have made a significant contribution to broad
patterns of history. Therefore, it is not eligible for CRHR or NRHP listing under Criteria A/1, B/2, or
C/3.
CONCLUSION
Based on background research, survey results, and guidance from the SurveyLA Historic Context
Statement and the LAUSD Historic Context Statement, the Mark Twain Middle School campus is
not eligible for the CRHR and NRHP under Criteria A/1, B/2, or C/3. As such, any proposed
improvements and/or construction-related activities will result in no significant impacts to historical
resources pursuant to CEQA.
Should there be any questions regarding the information contained in this MFR, please contact
Ms. Marilyn Novell at (626) 683-3547.
REFERENCES
“Contracts Awarded for Two Schools Total $1,174,571.” 21 July 1950. Los Angeles Times.
“Expansion Under Way at Mark Twain School.” 17 December 1950. Los Angeles Times.
18
19
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. [1990] Revised 1997. “How to Apply the National Register
Criteria for Evaluation.” National Register Bulletin 15. Washington, DC.
Page 10
Getty Research Institute. n.d. Phase 1 and 2 LAUSD Historic Resources Surveys, 2001-2004. Los
Angeles, CA.
Historic Context Summary Tables published by the City of Los Angeles Office of Historic
Resources. Accessed 25 June 2014. Available at:
http://preservation.lacity.org/news/surveyla-historic-context-summary-tablespublished
Los Angeles Historic Resources Survey (SurveyLA). 2010-present. Office of Historic
Resources, Department of City Planning, City of Los Angeles.
Los Angeles Unified School District. 2014. Los Angeles Unified School District Historic Context
Statement, 1870 to 1969. Prepared by Sapphos Environmental, Inc., Pasadena, CA.
Los Angeles Unified School District. 2014. Los Angeles Unified School District Historic Context
Statement. Prepared by: Sapphos Environmental, Inc., Pasadena, CA.
Mark Twain Middle School: Campus Pre-Planning Survey. Accessed 20 September 2014. Available
at: http://mo.laschools.org/planlausd/content/?crit=surveys#s2
Pacific Coast Architecture Database. Accessed 2 October 2014. Available at:
https://digital.lib.washington.edu/
PlanLAUSD. Accessed 20 March 2014. Master planning surveys and aerial photos. Available at:
Sapphos Environmental, Inc. March 2014. Los Angeles Unified School District
Historic Resources Survey. Pasadena, CA.
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. [1990] Revised 1997. “How to Apply the
National Register Criteria for Evaluation.” National Register Bulletin 15. Washington, DC.
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 1999. “How to Complete the National
Register Multiple Property Documentation Form.” National Register Bulletin No. 16B.
Washington, DC.
“Venice Junior High Name Change Approved.” 13 January 1950. Los Angeles Times.
Page 11
APPENDIX E
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION

Mandarin and English Dual-Language Immersion

Transcription

Similar documents

Manual - Citizens Fiber

Friday birthday week giveaway: 2 copies of the cheap wine book

Powerpoint

The Best Just Got Better Uniden`s BCD396XT

Shellsim - ECASA website

MONTHS - Ashley Furniture HomeStore

Meeting Agenda - Kubiak Research Group

anilam - Acu-Rite

JR300C JR400C JR500C