VolumeI FirestoneSubsequentDEIR

FIRESTONE EDUCATION CENTER MASTER PLAN
SUBSEQUENT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Prepared for
THE LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Prepared by
TERRY A. HAYES ASSOCIATES INC
January 2014
TAHA 2012-090
2013 FIRESTONE EDUCATION CENTER
MASTER PLAN
SUBSEQUENT DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Prepared for
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

770 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Prepared by
TERRY A. HAYES ASSOCIATES INC.

8522 National Boulevard, Suite 102
Culver City, CA 90232
January 2014
2013 Firestone Education Center Master Plan Table of Contents
Subsequent Draft EIR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
VOLUME I
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 Authorization and Focus....................................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 Project Applicant and Lead Agency ..................................................................................... 1-1
1.4 Responsible Agency ............................................................................................................. 1-2
1.5 Intended Use of this Subsequent Draft EIR.......................................................................... 1-2
1.6 Subsequent Draft EIR Organization ..................................................................................... 1-2
1.7 Public Review and Comments.............................................................................................. 1-3
1.8 Areas of Controversy/Issues to be Resolved ........................................................................ 1-3
2.0 SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Summary of Proposed Project .............................................................................................. 2-1
2.3 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts ................................................................................... 2-2
2.4 Potentially Significant Impacts That Can Be Mitigated to Less Than Significant ............... 2-4
2.5 Less-Than-Significant or No Impact .................................................................................... 2-4
2.6 Summary of Alternatives ...................................................................................................... 2-4
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................ 3-1

3.1 Project Background .............................................................................................................. 3-1
3.2 Project Objectives................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.3 Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses .............................................................................. 3-2
3.4 Project Description ............................................................................................................... 3-6
3.5 Construction Schedule and Phasing ..................................................................................... 3-9
3.6 Discretionary Actions and Approvals................................................................................. 3-10
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Aesthetics .......................................................................................................................... 4.1-1
4.2 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 4.2-1
4.3 Cultural Resources............................................................................................................. 4.3-1
4.4 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................. 4.4-1
4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................... 4.5-1
4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..................................................................................... 4.6-1
4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................... 4.7-1
4.8 Land Use and Planning...................................................................................................... 4.8-1
4.9 Noise & Vibration ............................................................................................................. 4.9-1
4.10 Population, Housing, and Employment ........................................................................... 4.10-1
4.11 Public Services ................................................................................................................ 4.11-1
4.12 Transportation and Traffic ............................................................................................... 4.12-1
4.13 Utilities and Service Systems .......................................................................................... 4.13-1
4.14 Cumulative Impacts ......................................................................................................... 4.14-1
taha 2012-090 ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

Page
5.0 ALTERNATIVES............................................................................................................................ 5-1

5.1 Project-Level Impacts ........................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Project .................................................................................... 5-3
6.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................... 6-1

6.1 Significant Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project ................................................. 6-1
6.2 Significant Environmental Effects that Cannot be Avoided if the Proposed Project
is Implemented ..................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.3 Significant Irreversible Environmental Effects .................................................................... 6-2
6.4 Effects Determined Not to be Significant............................................................................. 6-2
6.5 Growth Inducing Impacts ..................................................................................................... 6-3
7.0 PERSONS AND SOURCES CONSULTED ................................................................................. 7-1

7.1 Persons and Agencies Consulted .......................................................................................... 7-1
7.2 Sources Consulted ................................................................................................................ 7-1
7.3 Preparers of this EIR ............................................................................................................ 7-4
VOLUME II
TECHNICAL APPENDICES
Appendix A Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Comments to NOP

Appendix B Air Quality Data
Appendix C Cultural Resources Technical Reports
Appendix D Noise Data
Appendix E Traffic Study
taha 2012-090 iii


Page
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1 Conceptual Site Plan ......................................................................................................... 2-3
Figure 3-1 Regional Location ............................................................................................................. 3-3
Figure 3-2 Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses........................................................................... 3-5
Figure 3-3 Conceptual Site Plan ......................................................................................................... 3-7
Figure 4.1-1 Views of Buildings 1 and 2 ............................................................................................ 4.1-4
Figure 4.1-2 Views of Buildings 3 and 4 ............................................................................................ 4.1-6
Figure 4.1-3 View of the Union Pacific Railroad Tracks ................................................................... 4.1-7
Figure 4.1-4 View of the Water Tower ............................................................................................... 4.1-8
Figure 4.1-5 View of Commercial Businesses along Firestone Boulevard ...................................... 4.1-10
Figure 4.1-6 Existing Building 4 Summer Solstice Shadows ........................................................... 4.1-12
Figure 4.1-7 Existing Building 4 Spring/Fall Equinox Shadows...................................................... 4.1-13
Figure 4.1-8 Existing Building 4 Winter Solstice Shadows ............................................................. 4.1-14
Figure 4.1-9 Design Inspiration for FEC Building Architecture ...................................................... 4.1-16
Figure 4.1-10 New Building and Parking Structure Summer Solstice Shadows ................................ 4.1-19
Figure 4.1-11 New Building and Parking Structure Spring/Fall Equinox Shadows ........................... 4.1-20
Figure 4.1-12 New Building and Parking Structure Winter Solstice Shadows .................................. 4.1-21
Figure 4.2-1 South Coast Air Basin .................................................................................................... 4.2-6
Figure 4.2-2 Air Quality Monitoring Areas ........................................................................................ 4.2-8
Figure 4.2-3 Air Quality Sensitive Receptor Locations .................................................................... 4.2-10
Figure 4.3-1 Historic Buildings and Structures .................................................................................. 4.3-7
Figure 4.3-2 Historic Buildings .......................................................................................................... 4.3-8
Figure 4.3-3 Historic Structures .......................................................................................................... 4.3-9
Figure 4.4-1 Regional Faults............................................................................................................... 4.4-5
Figure 4.6-1 Historical Site Plan ......................................................................................................... 4.6-5
Figure 4.6-2 Public and Private Schools within One-Quarter Mile of the Project Site .................... 4.6-10
Figure 4.8-1 General Plan Land Use Designations ............................................................................. 4.8-3
Figure 4.8-2 Zoning Designations ...................................................................................................... 4.8-7
Figure 4.8-3 Existing Land Uses ........................................................................................................ 4.8-9
Figure 4.9-1 A-Weighted Decibel Scale ............................................................................................. 4.9-2
Figure 4.9-2 Noise Monitoring Locations........................................................................................... 4.9-8
Figure 4.9-3 Noise Sensitive Receptor Locations ............................................................................. 4.9-10
Figure 4.11-1 Fire and Police Stations ................................................................................................ 4.11-4
Figure 4.11-2 Public Schools, Parks, and Libraries .......................................................................... 4.11-13
Figure 4.12-1 Study Intersections ....................................................................................................... 4.12-6
Figure 4.12-2 Existing Roadway Configurations and Intersection Controls ...................................... 4.12-7
Figure 4.12-3 Existing Traffic Volumes - AM Peak Hour ............................................................... 4.12-11
Figure 4.12-4 Existing Traffic Volumes - PM Peak Hour ................................................................ 4.12-12
taha 2012-090 iv

Page
LIST OF FIGURES (cont.)

Figure 4.12-5 Net New Project Traffic Volumes Weekday AM Peak Hour .................................... 4.12-23
Figure 4.12-6 Net New Project Traffic Volumes Weekday PM Peak Hour ..................................... 4.12-24
Figure 4.12-7 Related Projects .......................................................................................................... 4.12-28
Figure 4.12-8 Existing With Project Traffic Volumes Weekday AM Peak Hours ........................... 4.12-32
Figure 4.12-9 Existing With Project Traffic Volumes Weekday PM Peak Hours ........................... 4.12-33
Figure 4.12-10 Year 2031 With Project Traffic Volumes Weekday AM Peak Hours ....................... 4.12-34
Figure 4.12-11 Year 2031 With Project Traffic Volumes Weekday PM Peak Hours ........................ 4.12-35
Figure 4.14-1 Related Projects ............................................................................................................ 4.14-3
taha 2012-090 v

Page
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Summary of Project-Related Impacts and Mitigation Measures .......................................... 2-6
Table 3-1 Existing Buildings on the Project Site .................................................................................. 3-2
Table 4.1-1 Applicable General Plan Objectives and Policies Related to Aesthetics .......................... 4.1-1
Table 4.2-1 State and National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status for the
South Coast Air Basin ....................................................................................................... 4.2-4
Table 4.2-2 Ambient Air Quality Data ................................................................................................. 4.2-9
Table 4.2-3 SCAQMD Daily Construction Emissions Thresholds .................................................... 4.2-11
Table 4.2-4 SCAQMD Daily Operational Emissions Thresholds ...................................................... 4.2-11
Table 4.2-5 Daily Construction Emissions ......................................................................................... 4.2-14
Table 4.2-6 Regional Operations Emissions - Existing and Future Conditions ................................. 4.2-15
Table 4.2-7 Localized Carbon Monoxide Concentrations .................................................................. 4.2-16
Table 4.3-1 Applicable General Plan Objectives and Policies Related to Cultural Resources ............. 4.3-5
Table 4.4-1 Applicable General Plan Objectives and Policies Related to Geology and Soils.............. 4.4-3
Table 4.5-1 Applicable General Plan Objectives and Policies Related to Greenhouse Gas ................. 4.5-4
Table 4.5-2 California Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory .............................................................. 4.5-6
Table 4.5-3 Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions................................................................................. 4.5-10
Table 4.5-4 Project Consistency with Applicable Attorney General Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Measures ........................................................................................................ 4.5-11
Table 4.5-5 Project Consistency with CAPCOA Greenhouse Gas Measures ................................... 4.5-12
Table 4.6-1 Applicable General Plan Objectives and Policies Related to Hazards and Hazardous
Materials ............................................................................................................................ 4.6-3
Table 4.6-2 Regulatory Database Research .......................................................................................... 4.6-8
Table 4.7-1 Applicable General Plan Objectives and Policies Related to Hydrology and Water
Quality ............................................................................................................................... 4.7-4
Table 4.8-1 Proposed Project Consistency with Local Plans and Policies Related to Land Use and
Planning ............................................................................................................................. 4.8-4
Table 4.9-1 South Gate Noise Ordinance Standards............................................................................. 4.9-4
Table 4.9-2 Applicable General Plan Objectives and Policies Related to Noise and Vibration ........... 4.9-5
Table 4.9-3 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments ......................................... 4.9-6
Table 4.9-4 Existing Noise Levels ........................................................................................................ 4.9-9
Table 4.9-5 Existing Mobile Source Noise Levels ............................................................................... 4.9-9
Table 4.9-6 Maximum Noise Levels of Common Construction Machines ........................................ 4.9-12
Table 4.9-7 Outdoor Construction Noise Levels ................................................................................ 4.9-12
Table 4.9-8 Construction Noise Levels – Unmitigated....................................................................... 4.9-13
Table 4.9-9 Vibration Velocities for Construction Equipment ........................................................... 4.9-13
Table 4.9-10 Vibration Velocities for Building Damage ...................................................................... 4.9-14
Table 4.9-11 Mobile Source Noise ....................................................................................................... 4.9-14
Table 4.9-12 Construction Noise – Mitigated....................................................................................... 4.9-17
taha 2012-090 vi

Page
LIST OF TABLES (cont.)

Table 4.10-1 Applicable General Plan Objectives and Policies Related to Population, Housing,
and Employment.............................................................................................................. 4.10-2
Table 4.10-2 2010 Population and Housing Characteristics ................................................................. 4.10-2
Table 4.11-1 Applicable General Plan Objectives and Policies Related to Fire Protection Services .. 4.11-2
Table 4.11-2 Equipment and Staffing of Fire Stations Serving the Project Site................................... 4.11-3
Table 4.11-3 Applicable General Plan Objectives and Policies Related to Police Protection
Services ........................................................................................................................... 4.11-7
Table 4.11-4 Part 1 Crime Offense in 2010 .......................................................................................... 4.11-8
Table 4.11-5 Applicable General Plan Objectives and Policies Related to Public Schools ............... 4.11-11
Table 4.11-6 Public Schools within One Mile of the Project Site ...................................................... 4.11-12
Table 4.11-7 Applicable General Plan Objectives and Policies Related to Parks, Recreation,
and Libraries .................................................................................................................. 4.11-15
Table 4.11-8 Park and Recreation Facilities Serving the City of South Gate ..................................... 4.11-16
Table 4.12-1 Existing Roadway Descriptions ...................................................................................... 4.12-4
Table 4.12-2 Existing Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................ 4.12-8
Table 4.12-3 Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections................................................... 4.12-13
Table 4.12-4 Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections .............................................. 4.12-13
Table 4.12-5 Existing Summary of Volume to Capacity Ratios or Delay and Levels of Service
for AM and PM Peak Hours ......................................................................................... 4.12-14
Table 4.12-6 Existing Transit Routes ................................................................................................. 4.12-17
Table 4.12-7 City of South Gate Intersection Impact Threshold Criteria ........................................... 4.12-18
Table 4.12-8 County of Los Angeles Intersection Impact Threshold Criteria .................................... 4.12-19
Table 4.12-9 Project Trip Generation ................................................................................................. 4.12-22
Table 4.12-10 Related Projects and Trip Generation ............................................................................ 4.12-27
Table 4.12-11 Summary of Volume-to-Capacity Ratios Delay and LOS AM and PM Peak Hours
for Project Using City of South Gate Methodology ...................................................... 4.12-30
Table 4.12-12 Summary of Volume-to-Capacity Ratios and LOS – Weekday AM and PM Peak
Hours Project Conditions .............................................................................................. 4.12-37
Table 4.12-13 CMP Traffic Impact Assessment................................................................................... 4.12-40
Table 4.13-1 Applicable General Plan Objectives and Policies Related to Water ............................... 4.13-2
Table 4.13-2 City of South of Gate Recent and Projected Water Demand and Supply........................ 4.13-3
Table 4.13-3 Estimated Water Usage of Existing Uses at the Project Site and the South Gate
Education Center ............................................................................................................. 4.13-4
Table 4.13-4 Estimated Increase in Water Usage at the Project Site .................................................... 4.13-5
Table 4.13-5 Applicable General Plan Objectives and Policies Related to Wastewater ...................... 4.13-9
Table 4.13-6 Estimated Wastewater Generation of Existing Uses at the Project Site and the
South Gate Education Center ........................................................................................ 4.13-10
Table 4.13-7 Estimated Increase in Wastewater Generation at the Project Site ................................. 4.13-11
Table 4.13-8 Applicable General Plan Objectives and Policies Related to Solid Waste .................... 4.13-13
Table 4.13-9 Landfills Serving the City of South Gate ...................................................................... 4.13-14
taha 2012-090 vii


Page
LIST OF TABLES (cont.)

Table 4.13-10 Estimated Solid Waste Generation of Existing Uses at the Project Site and the
Table 4.13-11 Estimated Solid Waste Generation During the Demolition and Construction
Phases of the Proposed Project ...................................................................................... 4.13-15
Table 4.13-12 Estimated Increase in Solid Waste Generation at the Project Site ................................ 4.13-16
Table 4.13-13 Applicable General Plan Objectives and Policies Related to Energy............................ 4.13-18
Table 4.13-14 Estimated Electricity Usage of Existing Uses at the Project Site and Existing
Table 4.13-15 Estimated Natural Gas Usage of the Existing Uses at the Project Site and
Existing South Gate Education Center .......................................................................... 4.13-20
Table 4.13-16 Estimated Increase in Electricity Usage at the Project Site ........................................... 4.13-21
Table 4.13-17 Estimated Increase in Natural Gas Usage at the Project Site ........................................ 4.13-22
Table 4.14-1 Related Projects ............................................................................................................... 4.14-1
Table 4.14-2 Cumulative Construction Noise Levels - Unmitigated.................................................... 4.14-6
Table 4.14-3 Cumulative Construction Noise Levels - Mitigated ........................................................ 4.14-6
Table 4.14-4 Population, Housing, and Employment Generation of the Related Projects ................... 4.14-7
Table 4.14-5 Estimated Water Usage of the Related Projects and Proposed Project ......................... 4.14-11
Table 4.14-6 Estimated Wastewater Generation of the Related Projects and Proposed Project ........ 4.14-12
Table 4.14-7 Estimated Solid Waste Generation of the Related Projects and Proposed Project ........ 4.14-13
Table 4.14-8 Estimated Electricity Usage of the Related Projects and Proposed Project .................. 4.14-14
Table 4.14-9 Estimated Natural Gas Usage of the Related Projects and Proposed Project ................ 4.14-15
Table 5-1 Comparison of Alternatives to the Proposed Project.......................................................... 5-10
taha 2012-090 viii

2013 Firestone Education Center Master Plan 1.0 Introduction
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides an overview of the purpose and focus of the Subsequent Draft Environmental Impact
Report (EIR), a discussion of the intended use of this Subsequent Draft EIR, a description of the organization
of the Subsequent Draft EIR, and a discussion of the public review process.
1.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of an EIR, as defined in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines
Section 15121(a) is to “inform public agency decision-makers and the public generally of the potential
significant environmental effects of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effect and
describe reasonable alternatives to the project.”
In December 2009, Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD) certified the East Los Angeles
College Firestone Education Center Final EIR (2009 Final EIR) which allowed LACCD to acquire the
project site with the intent of relocating and expanding the South Gate Education Center (SGEC). Following
the certification of the 2009 Final EIR, a Master Plan and EIR was prepared for the Firestone Education
Center (FEC) in 2011, referred to as the 2011 FEC Master Plan. The 2011 FEC Master Plan was never
approved nor was the 2011 FEC Master Plan EIR certified. The 2011 FEC Master Plan anticipated a two-
phase project that would ultimately serve up to 12,000 students. However, LACCD subsequently analyzed
capacity load ratios to ensure new projects are appropriate in concept, scale, and budget. As a result, the
programming of the FEC has now been reduced to accommodate 9,000 students, and the FEC Master Plan
has been updated to reflect these changes. This Subsequent Draft EIR is being prepared for the updated
2013 FEC Master Plan.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 states that a Subsequent EIR shall be prepared when an EIR has been
certified for a project but substantial changes to the project are proposed that will require major revisions to
the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified significant effects.
1.2 AUTHORIZATION AND FOCUS

This Subsequent Draft EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines. The following topic
areas are addressed in this Subsequent Draft EIR:
Aesthetics Noise and Vibration
Air Quality Land Use and Planning
Cultural Resources Population, Housing, and Employment
Geology and Soils Public Services
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Transportation and Traffic
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Utilities and Service Systems
Hydrology and Water Quality
1.3 PROJECT APPLICANT AND LEAD AGENCY

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15367 and 15351, the LACCD is the Applicant and the Lead
Agency. CEQA Guidelines Section 15351 defines the Applicant as the person who proposes to carry out a
project which needs a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use or financial assistance
from one or more public agencies when that person applies for the governmental approval or assistance.
taha 2012-090 1-1

CEQA Guidelines Section 15367 defines the Lead Agency as the public agency which has the principal
responsibility for carrying out or approving the project.
1.4 RESPONSIBLE AGENCY

Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15381, the City of South Gate has been identified as a Responsible Agency
with regard to changes to City-maintained infrastructure, such as roads and utilities. Other agencies that may
have a role in project approvals may include, but are not limited to, the City of Los Angeles, County of Los
Angeles, Los Angeles County Fire Department, California Department of Transportation, Department of
Toxic Substances Control, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, the South Coast Air Quality
Management District, and the California Office of Historic Preservation.
1.5 INTENDED USE OF THIS SUBSEQUENT DRAFT EIR

This Subsequent Draft EIR was prepared at the direction and under the supervision of the LACCD; the Lead
Agency for the proposed project. The intended use of this Subsequent Draft EIR is to inform the public of
the potential significant environmental effects of a project and to assist the LACCD in making decisions
regarding the approval of the proposed project.
1.6 SUBSEQUENT DRAFT EIR ORGANIZATION

1.0 INTRODUCTION. As stated above, this chapter contains an overview of the purpose and focus of the
Subsequent Draft EIR, a discussion of the intended use of this Subsequent Draft EIR, a description of the
organization of the Subsequent Draft EIR, and a discussion of the public review process and potential areas
of controversy.
2.0 SUMMARY. This chapter provides a summary of the proposed project, its potential environmental
effects and mitigation measures, and a summary of the alternatives to the proposed project evaluated in this
Subsequent Draft EIR.
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION. This chapter describes the project background, location, existing
conditions, project objectives, and a description of the proposed project.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. This chapter contains the environmental setting, project analyses,
mitigation measures, and conclusions regarding the level of significance after mitigation for each of the
environmental issues identified above.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES. This chapter provides an analysis of each of the alternatives to the proposed project.
6.0. OTHER CEQA DISCUSSIONS. This chapter provides a discussion of the (1) significant
environmental effects of the proposed project, (2) significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if
the proposed project is implemented, (3) significant irreversible environmental changes that would result
from implementation of the proposed project, and (4) growth-inducing impacts of the proposed project.
7.0 PERSONS AND SOURCES CONSULTED. This chapter lists all of the persons, public agencies, and
organizations that were consulted or contributed, and all the references and sources used in the preparation of
this Subsequent Draft EIR.
taha 2012-090 1-2

1.7 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENTS

A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this Subsequent Draft EIR was issued on December 14, 2012 by the
LACCD for a 30-day public review period. A total of seven comment letters were received. Information,
data, and observations resulting from these letters are included throughout this Subsequent Draft EIR where
relevant. The NOP and copies of each comment letter received are included in Appendix A of this
Subsequent Draft EIR. A public scoping meeting was held on January 10, 2013. The purpose of this
meeting was to provide early consultation for the public to express their concerns about the proposed project,
and acquire information and make recommendations on issues to be addressed in the Subsequent Draft EIR.
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15087 and 15105, this Subsequent Draft EIR is being
circulated for a 45-day public review period. Responsible and trustee agencies and the public are invited to
comment in writing on the information contained in this document. Persons and agencies commenting are
encouraged to provide information that they believe is missing from the Subsequent Draft EIR and to
identify where the information can be obtained. All comments received concerning the Subsequent Draft
EIR will be responded to in writing, and incorporated into a Subsequent Final EIR.
Comment letters should be sent to:

Thomas Hall, Director
Facilities Planning and Development
Los Angeles Community College District
770 Wilshire Boulevard, 6th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Fax: (213) 891-2145
E-mail: THall@email.laccd.edu
1.8 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY/ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED

Potential areas of controversy and issues to be resolved by the decision-makers may include environmental
concerns expressed in the NOP comment letters. Based on the NOP comment letters issues known to be of
concern include transportation and traffic, public services, cultural resources, utilities and service systems,
and air quality. Refer to Appendix A for copies of the NOP comment letters. Other areas of concern include
environmental issues areas where significant and unavoidable impacts have been identified in this
Subsequent Draft EIR. These areas include cultural resources, noise and vibration, and transportation and
traffic.
taha 2012-090 1-3

2013 Firestone Education Center Master Plan 2.0 Summary
2.0 SUMMARY
This chapter provides an overview of the Subsequent Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), its potential
environmental effects and mitigation measures, and a summary of the alternatives to the proposed project
evaluated.
2.1 INTRODUCTION
East Los Angeles College (ELAC), part of the Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD),
established the South Gate Education Center (SGEC) as a satellite campus in 1997 to better serve a growing
student population that resides in the southern portion of the ELAC's service district. ELAC serves an area
of approximately 100 square miles within Los Angeles County that includes all or parts of Alhambra, Bell,
Bell Gardens, City of Commerce, Cudahy, East Los Angeles, Huntington Park, Los Angeles, Maywood,
Montebello, Monterey Park, Rosemead, San Gabriel, South San Gabriel, South Gate, and Vernon. The
SGEC, located at 2340 Firestone Boulevard in the City of South Gate, is just more than seven miles
southeast of ELAC located at 1301 Avenida Cesar Chavez in the City of Monterey Park.
The SGEC occupies a 51,000-square-foot building with 24 classrooms, a computer lab, a bookstore, a
library, and student support services and offers a variety of career and academic courses. Student enrollment
at the SGEC has increased by about 32 percent between the fall semesters of 2007 and 2011.1
Approximately 4,912 students were enrolled in classes at the SGEC during the fall semester of 2011. About
2,330 of those students attended classes at both the SGEC and other ELAC locations.2 Due to rapid student
growth and a lack of adequate facilities and curriculum offerings, the SGEC has become deficient in meeting
the community’s current and future needs. Deficiencies include inadequate parking and the need for many
students to commute to the ELAC campus to complete their coursework.
The passage of Bond Measure AA in 2003 provided funding to LACCD for the purchase and development of
a new satellite campus site to meet the demand for greater educational access and opportunities for the
communities currently served by the SGEC. In December 2009, LACCD certified the East Los Angeles
College Firestone Education Center Final EIR (2009 Final EIR), which allowed LACCD to acquire the
project site with the intent of relocating and expanding the SGEC. Following the certification of the
2009 Final EIR, a Master Plan and EIR was prepared for the Firestone Education Center (FEC) in 2011,
referred to as the 2011 FEC Master Plan. The 2011 FEC Master Plan was never approved nor was the
2011 FEC Master Plan EIR certified. The 2011 FEC Master Plan anticipated a two-phase project that would
ultimately serve up to 12,000 students. However, LACCD subsequently analyzed capacity load ratios to
ensure new projects are appropriate in concept, scale, and budget. As a result, the programming of the FEC
has now been reduced to accommodate 9,000 students, and the 2011 FEC Master Plan has been updated to
reflect these changes. This Subsequent Draft EIR is being prepared for the updated 2013 FEC Master Plan.
2.2 SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

The proposed project consists of the construction and operation of the FEC, a new LACCD satellite campus
that would replace the existing SGEC, provide for expanded and improved educational facilities, and
accommodate existing and projected student enrollment. The FEC would accommodate up to 9,000 students.
The timeframe for this level of enrollment is uncertain; however, for purposes of analysis, based on LACCD
1
East Los Angeles College, South Gate Student Enrollment 2007-2011, email from Ryan Cornner, Associate Dean of
Research, November 19, 2012.
2
Ibid.
taha 2012-090 2-1

projections it is assumed that student enrollment capacity would be met in 2031. 3 The FEC would offer
academic programs parallel to those available at the main ELAC campus and allow students to complete
their degree and transfer requirements at one convenient location.
The proposed project includes the demolition of the 220,550-square-foot Building 4 and its connections to
Building 3, and the construction of a new 100,000-gross-square-foot building and an approximately 1,600-
space parking structure on the northern portion of the project site. 4 In addition, the project site would be
improved with an approximately 60-space surface parking lot, landscaping, an open space area, and other
outdoor amenities. Vehicular access and circulation improvements would also be implemented on- and off-
site. Buildings 1, 2, and 3 would not be used for college uses, and LACCD would continue to lease these
facilities to tenants for warehousing and other appropriate uses. Existing uses within Building 4 would be
relocated to Building 1 or 3. A conceptual site plan is provided in Figure 2-1. The conceptual site plan
provides a framework for the development of the FEC campus and is for illustrative purposes only. The final
design would result from the collaboration of ELAC and a Design/Build Team selected to carry the proposed
project forward. The final design plans will identify footprint, orientation, and design of the proposed
building and parking structure. As these plans have not been finalized, for purposes of this EIR, the
proposed project is the construction and operation of the FEC that would not exceed the maximum building
envelope described in Chapter 3.0 Project Description.
2.3 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS

CEQA Guidelines Section 15382 defines a significant impact on the environment as “a substantial, or
potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within an area affected by the
project, including land, air, water, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic
significance.” In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, to approve a project with significant and
unavoidable impacts, the lead agency must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations indicating that
the benefits of approving the proposed project outweigh the negative environmental consequences.
As disclosed in this Subsequent EIR, and shown in Table 2-1, at the end of this chapter, the proposed project
would create significant and unavoidable impacts associated with:
• Cultural Resources (Historical Resources). Due to the removal of Building 4 and its connections to
Building 3, the proposed project would create significant and unavoidable impacts related to historical
resources. Mitigation measures are proposed to address these impacts; however, no feasible mitigation
measures were identified to reduce the significant impact to a less-than-significant level.
• Noise (Construction). Noise generated by construction of the proposed project would exceed the City’s
significance threshold at residential land uses north and east of the proposed project site resulting in
significant and unavoidable impacts related to noise. Mitigation measures are proposed to address this
impact; however, no feasible mitigation measures were identified to reduce the significant impact to a
less-than-significant level.
• Transportation and Traffic (Circulation System and Congestion Management Plan). New vehicle
trips resulting from the proposed project would create significant and unavoidable impacts related to the
circulation system (i.e., intersection operations and Congestion Management Plan [CMP]). Mitigation
measures are proposed to address impacts related to the circulation system; however, no feasible
mitigation measures were identified to reduce all of the significant impacts to a less-than-significant
level. No feasible mitigation measures were identified to reduce the significant impact related to the
CMP (i.e., intersection) to a less-than-significant level.
3
Depending on a number of factors including the economy, State funding and growth restrictions, and availability of
educational facilities elsewhere, the date when this level of enrollment could occur may be delayed.
4
Building 4 is connected to Building 3 through a first floor passageway, a third floor bridge, and a building extension.
taha 2012-090 2-2

UPRR RIGHT-O
F WAY
VE
ORE A
ARDM
NEW PARKING
STRUCTURE
NEW NEW NEW

SURFACE OPEN BUILDING
L
ARD P
PARKING SPACE ORCH
SA
TAN
F
BUILDING 3
EA
VE
EL PL
LAUR
BUILDING 1
BUILDING 2
FIRESTONE BLVD
LEGEND:
Project Site
New Buildings
New Visitor Entry
New Landscaping
New and Improved Internal Roadway
N
New Traffic Signal Approx.
Scale
Existing Buildings Remain As-Is
0 100 200
SOURCE: Berliner and Associates and TAHA, 2013. Feet
2013 Firestone Education Center Master Plan FIGURE 2-1
taha 2012-090
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
2.4 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CAN

BE MITIGATED TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
Table 2-1, at the end of this chapter, provides a summary of the project-related impacts and their significance
after mitigation. Based on the analysis contained in this Subsequent Draft EIR, the following were found to
result in a less-than-significant impact with mitigation:
• Air Quality (Regional Emissions)
• Cultural Resources (Archaeological Resources, Paleontological Resources and Human Remains)
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Hazardous Materials and Emergency Response Plans)
• Public Services (Fire and Police)
2.5 LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT OR NO IMPACT

Based on the analysis contained in this Subsequent Draft EIR, the following were found to result in a less-
than-significant impact or no impact without mitigation:
• Aesthetics
• Air Quality (Localized Emissions, Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions, Odors, Consistency with the Air
Quality Management Plan)
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Airport Hazards and Wildland Fires)
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Noise (Vibration)
• Population, Housing and Employment
• Public Services (Parks and Libraries)
• Transportation and Traffic (Vehicle and Pedestrian Site Access and Public Transit, Bicycle, or Pedestrian
Facilities)
• Utilities
2.6 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES

CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project or to the location of the
project that could feasibly avoid or lessen significant environmental impacts while substantially attaining the
basic objectives of the project. 5 An EIR should also evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. The
range of feasible alternatives is selected and discussed in a manner intended to foster meaningful public
participation and informed decision making. Among the factors that may be taken into account when
addressing the feasibility of alternatives (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f][1]) are environmental
impacts, site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency,
regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent could reasonably acquire,
control, or otherwise have access to the alternative site.
5
CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15126.6.
taha 2012-090 2-4

The alternatives considered for the proposed project and analyzed in Chapter 5.0 Alternatives include:
Alternative 1 – No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative is required by CEQA Guidelines

Section 15126.6(e)(2) and assumes that the proposed project would not be implemented. The No Project
Alternative allows decision-makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the
impacts of not approving the proposed project. However, “no project” does not necessarily mean that
development on the project site will be prohibited. The No Project Alternative includes “what would be
reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current
plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services” (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15126.6[e][2]). In this case, the No Project Alternative assumes the existing SGEC would continue
to operate at its current location, and the project site would eventually be re-occupied with industrial uses.
Alternative 2 – Historic Preservation Alternative. Alternative 2 assumes that Building 4, which has been
identified as a contributor to a California Register of Historical Resources (California Register)-eligible
district, would not be demolished. The Historic Preservation Alternative assumes that Building 4 would be
retained and rehabilitated for college programming. Alternative 2 would not require the construction of a
new building for college uses; however, similar to the proposed project, a parking structure would be
constructed on-site to provide parking for the college. Consistent with the proposed project, student
enrollment would not exceed 9,000 students under Alternative 2.
taha 2012-090 2-5

TABLE 2-1: SUMMARY OF PROJECT-RELATED IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Impact Category Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation
AIR QUALITY- CONSTRUCTION
Regional Construction-related daily maximum regional AQ1 The construction contractor shall utilize super-compliant architectural coatings as Less than Significant
Emissions emissions would exceed the SCAQMD defined by the SCAQMD (VOC standard of less than ten grams per liter).
threshold for VOC as a result of architectural AQ2 Construction contractors shall utilize materials that do not require painting, as
coating activity. Therefore, without feasible.
mitigation, the proposed project would result
in a significant impact related to regional AQ3 Construction contractors shall use pre-painted construction materials, as
construction emissions. feasible.
CULTURAL RESOURCES - CONSTRUCTION

Historical Significant and unavoidable impacts to CR1 Impacts resulting from the demolition of Building 4 and alteration of Building 3 Significant and Unavoidable
Resources historical resources have been identified due shall be minimized through archival documentation of as-built and as-found
to the removal of Building 4, considered a condition. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the Los Angeles Community
contributor to the California Register eligible College District shall ensure that documentation of the buildings and structures
South Gate Historic District. Mitigation proposed for demolition is completed in the form of a Historic American Building
measures are proposed to address these Survey Level I documentation that shall comply with the Secretary of the
impacts; however, no mitigation measures Interior’s Standards for Architectural and Engineering Documentation (National
were identified to reduce the significant Park Service 1990). The documentation shall include large-format photographic
impact related to historical resources to less recordation, detailed historic narrative report, and compilation of historic
than significant. research. The documentation shall be completed by a qualified architectural
historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualification Standards for History and/or Architectural History (National Park
Service 1983). The original archival-quality documentation shall be offered as
donated material to the new campus library where it would be available for
current and future generations. Archival copies of the documentation also would
be submitted to the South Gate’s Leland R. Weaver Public Library where it would
be available to local researchers. Completion of this mitigation measure shall be
monitored and enforced by the Los Angeles Community College District.
CR2 Impacts related to the loss of Building 4 and its connections to Building 3 shall be
reduced through the development of a retrospective display detailing the history
of the historic district, its significance, and its important details and features. This
display can be in the form of a physical exhibit, kiosk, a web page, or some
combination of these media types. The display shall include images and details
from the Historic American Building Survey documentation and any collected
research pertaining to the historic district. The display content shall be prepared
by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the
Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for History and/or Architectural
History (National Park Service 1983). The display shall be completed within two
years of the date of completion of the proposed project. Completion of this
mitigation measure shall be monitored and enforced by the Los Angeles
Community College District.
taha 2012-090 2-6


Archaeological During ground-disturbing activities, such as CR3 If evidence of archaeological resources (artifacts or features) are discovered Less than Significant
Resources grading, grubbing, and vegetation clearing during construction related earth-moving activities, all ground-disturbing activities
there is a possibility of discovering and (e.g., grading, grubbing, vegetation clearing) within 100 feet of the resource shall
potentially impacting archeological be halted and Los Angeles Community College District shall be notified. Los
resources. Therefore, without mitigation, the Angeles Community College District shall hire an archaeologist who meets the
proposed project could result in a significant Secretary of the Interior’s professional qualification standards shall be retained to
impact related to archaeological resources. assess the significance of the resource. Impacts to any significant resources
shall be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through data recovery or other
methods determined adequate by the archaeologist and Los Angeles Community
College District and shall be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for Archaeological Documentation. Any identified archaeological
resources shall be recorded on the appropriate Department of Park and
Recreation 523 (A-L) form and filed with the appropriate Information Center.
Paleontological During deep excavations (i.e., ten feet deep CR4 All project-related ground disturbances that could potentially impact Less than Significant
Resources or greater) there is a possibility of paleontologically sensitive Quaternary older alluvium shall be monitored by a
discovering and potentially impacting qualified paleontological monitor on a full-time basis, as this geologic unit is
paleontological resources. Therefore, considered to have a high paleontological sensitivity. Since Quaternary older
without mitigation, the proposed project could alluvium is estimated to occur at depths of ten feet and greater, all excavations
result in a significant impact related to deeper than ten feet will be monitored full-time. Additionally, any excavations
paleontological resources. that occur in surficial younger (Holocene age) Quaternary alluvial and fluvial
deposits and/or topsoil (estimated to occur at less than ten feet in depth) shall be
spot-checked on a part-time basis at the discretion of the Qualified Paleontologist
to ensure that underlying paleontologically sensitive sediments are not being
impacted.
CR5 A Qualified Paleontologist shall be retained to supervise monitoring of
construction excavations beyond ten feet in depth and inspect exposed rock
units during active excavations within sensitive geologic sediments. The
paleontologist shall implement a paleontological monitoring and mitigation plan
for the proposed project to reduce impacts to paleontological resources to a less-
than-significant level in the event that such resources are encountered. The
qualified paleontologist shall have authority to temporarily divert grading away
from exposed fossils in order to professionally and efficiently recover the fossil
specimens and collect associated data. In the event that fossils are encountered,
at each fossil locality, field data forms shall be used to record pertinent geologic
data, stratigraphic sections will be measured, and appropriate sediment samples
will be collected and submitted for analysis.
taha 2012-090 2-7


Human Remains During ground-disturbing activities, such as CR6 If human remains are discovered during any demolition/construction activities, all Less than Significant
grading, grubbing, and vegetation clearing ground-disturbing activity within a 100 foot radius of the remains shall be halted
there is a possibility of discovering and immediately, and the Los Angeles County Coroner shall be notified immediately,
potentially impacting human remains. according to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and California Health and
Therefore, without mitigation, the proposed Safety Code Section 7050.5. If the human remains are determined to be Native
project would result in a significant impact American, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, and the
related to human remains. guidelines of the Native American Heritage Commission shall be adhered to in the
treatment and disposition of the remains. The Native American Heritage
Commission will consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any. The Most Likely
Descendant shall complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of notification
and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human
remains and items associated with Native American burials. The Los Angeles
Community College District shall be responsible for the approval and
implementation of the Most Likely Descendant recommendations as deemed
appropriate, prior to resumption of ground-disturbing activities within 100 foot radius
of where the remains were discovered.
HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - CONSTRUCTION
Hazardous During construction of the proposed project, HM1 Should Los Angeles Community College District encounter any previously Less than Significant
Materials contaminated soils not previously identified unidentified contaminants during construction, an action plan shall be developed,
(Contaminated could be encountered, potentially creating a approved by Department of Toxic Substances Control as appropriate, and
Soils) significant hazard. Therefore, without implemented, prior to resuming construction activities in the contaminated area.
mitigation, construction of the proposed As needed, the investigation and remediation of a release or threatened release
project could result in a significant impact of any hazardous substances at or from the project site can be overseen by the
related to contaminated soils. Department of Toxic Substances Control in accordance with the Voluntary
Cleanup Agreement between Department of Toxic Substances Control and Los
Angeles Community College District.
Hazardous Removal and/or disturbance of ACMs and HM2 Prior to the demolition of Building 4, asbestos containing materials shall be Less than Significant
Materials lead-based paint during the renovation removed from Building 4 in accordance with the recommendations contained in
(Asbestos and and/or demolition activities could expose the Limited Hazardous Materials Testing Report dated January 19, 2013, and
Lead-based construction workers and the public to California Code of Regulations Title 8. Removal must be conducted by a
Paint) asbestos and lead-based paint. Therefore, California Occupation Safety and Health Administration-register and State-
without mitigation measures construction of licensed asbestos removal contractor. Abatement operations shall be performed
the proposed project would result in a under the direct observation of a California Certified Asbestos Consultant or
significant impact related to asbestos and Certified Site Surveillance Technician. For all abatement activities which involve
lead-based paint. the removal of at least 100 square feet of hazardous materials, notifications must
be made to the South Coast Air Quality Management and California Occupation
Safety and Health Administration, 10 days and 24 hours, respectively, prior to
initiation of such activities.
HM3 Prior to the demolition of Building 4, lead based paint and other hazardous
materials shall be removed from Building 4 in accordance with the
recommendations contained in the Limited Hazardous Materials Testing Report
dated January 19, 2013, and California Code of Regulations Title 22. For all
abatement activities which involve the removal of at least 100 square feet of
hazardous materials, notifications must be made to California Occupation Safety
and Health Administration 24 hours prior to initiation of such activities.
taha 2012-090 2-8


Emergency Temporary street or lane closures that would Mitigation Measures PS1 and PS2 would apply to this impact. Less than Significant
Response Plans occur during construction of the proposed
project could interfere with the
implementation of the City’s emergency
response plan. Therefore, without mitigation
measures construction of the proposed
project could result in a significant impact
related to emergency response plans.
NOISE & VIBRATION - CONSTRUCTION
Noise Noise generated from construction activity N1 All construction equipment shall be equipped with muffler devices. Significant and Unavoidable
would exceed the noise significance N2 Prior to initiating construction activity, the construction contractor shall coordinate
threshold at residential land uses north and with the site administrators for the Firestone Education Center to discuss
east of the proposed project site. Mitigation
construction activities that generate high noise levels. Coordination between the
measures are proposed to address this
site administrator and the construction contractor shall continue on an as-needed
impact; however, no feasible mitigation basis throughout the construction phase of the project to mitigate potential
measures were identified to reduce the disruption of classroom activities.
significant impact to a less-than-significant
level. N3 A “noise disturbance coordinator” shall be established. The disturbance
coordinator shall be responsible for responding to local complaints about
construction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of the
noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and shall be required
to implement reasonable measures such that the complaint is resolved. All
notices that are sent to residential units within 500 feet of the construction site
and all signs posted at the construction site shall list the telephone number for
the disturbance coordinator.
N4 The construction contractor shall locate construction staging areas away from
noise-sensitive uses.
N5 Haul routes shall be located on major arterial roads within non-residential areas,
as feasible.
N6 Prior to initiating construction activity, the construction contractor shall coordinate
with the site administrators for the Firestone Education Center to discuss
construction activities that generate high noise levels. Coordination between the
site administrator and the construction contractor shall continue on an as-needed
basis throughout the construction phase of the project to mitigate potential
disruption of classroom activities.
N7 A “noise disturbance coordinator” shall be established. The disturbance
coordinator shall be responsible for responding to local complaints about
construction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of the
noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and shall be required
to implement reasonable measures such that the complaint is resolved. All
notices that are sent to residential units within 500 feet of the construction site
and all signs posted at the construction site shall list the telephone number for
the disturbance coordinator.
taha 2012-090 2-9


PUBLIC SERVICES - CONSTRUCTION
Fire Construction of the proposed project could PS1 Prior to the construction of the proposed project, Los Angeles Community Less than Significant
temporarily reduce Los Angeles County Fire College District shall provide to the Los Angeles County Fire Department all
Department emergency response times due building plans, construction plans, construction schedules, and, if applicable,
to street or lane closures. Therefore, without proposed construction and street or lane closures related to the proposed project
mitigation measures, construction of the for Los Angeles County Fire Department review and approval.
proposed project could result in a significant PS2 At least three days in advance of any street or lane closure that may affect Fire
impact related to fire protection services. and/or Paramedic responses in the area, Los Angeles Community College
District shall notify the Los Angeles Sherriff Department, South Gate Police
Department, Los Angeles County Fire Department , and Fire Stations 16, 147,
and 54.
Police Construction of the proposed project could Mitigation Measure PS2 would apply to this impact. Less than Significant
temporarily reduce South Gate Police
Department emergency response times due
to street or lane closures. Therefore, without
mitigation measures, construction of the
proposed project would result in a significant
impact related to police services.
TRANSPORTATION & TRAFFIC - OPERATIONS

Circulation Vehicle trips generated by proposed project Intersection No. 8: Santa Fe Avenue/Project Driveway-Ardmore Avenue Significant and Unavoidable
System would result in an increase in v/c ratios at TT1 LACCD shall install a traffic signal and construct two inbound travel lanes and
specific study intersections that exceed City two outbound travel lanes and associated roadway restriping and signage. The
of South Gate and County of Los Angeles outbound (i.e., exiting FEC traffic) travel lanes shall be configured to provide a
impact threshold criteria. Mitigation shared left/through lane and an exclusive right-turn only lane while two inbound
measures are proposed to address these travel lanes would be provided. In addition, adequate northbound left-turn
impacts; however, no feasible mitigation storage along Santa Fe Avenue for entering (northbound) FEC motorists shall be
measures were identified to reduce all of the provided.
significant impacts related to the circulation Intersection No. 9: Santa Fe Avenue/Project Driveway-Orchard Place
system to less than significant.
TT2 LACCD shall restripe the northbound and southbound approaches on Santa Fe
Avenue to provide a northbound left-turn lane and a southbound left-turn lane.
This improvement can be accommodated within the existing Santa Fe Avenue
roadway width.
Intersection No. 10: Santa Fe Avenue/Firestone Boulevard
TT3 LACCD shall install eastbound and westbound exclusive right-turn only lanes.
The existing eastbound and westbound combination through-right turn lanes
shall be restriped to provide a 10-foot through lane with a 12-foot wide right-turn
only lane for both the eastbound and westbound approaches. Up to two on-
street parking spaces shall also be removed along the north and south sides of
Firestone Boulevard. Additionally, LACCD shall request that the City of South
Gate consider relocation of the existing eastbound near-side bus stop to a far-
side bus stop.
taha 2012-090 2-10


On-Site Transportation Demand Management Measures
TT4 LACCD shall implement an enhanced Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) program for the proposed project. The measures incorporated into the
TDM project shall further decrease the number of vehicular trips generated by
persons traveling to/from the site by offering specific facilities, services and
actions designed to increase the use of alternative transportation modes (e.g.,
transit, rail, walking, bicycling, etc.) and ridesharing. TDM measures may include
the following:
TDM Web Site Information. Transportation information shall be provided in a
highly visible and accessible location on the school’s web site, including links
to local transit providers, area walking, bicycling maps, etc., to inform
employees, students and visitors of available alternative transportation
modes to access the campuses and travel in the area. The web site shall
also highlight the environmental benefits of utilization of alternative
transportation modes.
TDM Promotional Material. ELAC shall provide and exhibit in public places
information materials on options for alternative transportation modes and
opportunities. In addition, transit fare media and day/month passes shall be
made available to employees, students and visitors during typical business
hours.
Transit Welcome Package (TWP). All new students and employees of the
college shall be provided with a TWP in addition to holding Transportation
Fair each semester. The TWP at a minimum shall include information
regarding ELAC’s arrangement for free or discounted use of the transit
system, area bus/rail transit route information, bicycle facilities (including
routes, rental and sales locations, on-site bicycle racks, walking and biking
maps), and convenient local services and restaurants within walking distance
of the ELAC campuses.
Internet-Based/Independent Study Education. ELAC shall offer internet-
based and independent study classes which allows for a portion or all of the
education activities to occur without students and faculty needing to be
physically on-site at an ELAC facility.
Public Transit Passes. To the extent feasible, ELAC shall offer free or
discounted public transit coordination with various transit providers for all
students and staff. The program shall allow students to be able to use their
ELAC identification card for either free or substantially discounted transit
passes.
Carpool Program for Employees. ELAC shall provide preferential parking
within the parking garage for employees who commute to work in ELAC
registered carpools. An employee who drives to work with at least one other
employee to the campus may register as a carpool entitled to preferential
parking within the meaning of this provision.
taha 2012-090 2-11


Public Transit Stop Enhancements . Working in cooperation with other transit
agencies and the City of South Gate, ELAC shall seek to improve existing
bus stops with enhanced shelters and transit information within the
immediate vicinity of the Firestone Education Center campus. Enhancements
may include weather protection, lighting, benches, telephones, and trash
receptacles. These improvements would be intended to make riding the bus
a safer and more attractive alternative.
Convenient Parking for Bicycle Riders. ELAC shall provide locations at the
site for convenient parking for bicycle commuters for working employees,
students attending classes, and visitors. The bicycle parking shall be located
within the Firestone Education Center campus and/or in the public right-of-way
adjacent to the campus such that long-term and short-term parkers can be
accommodated. Bicycle parking means bicycle racks, a locked cage, or
other similar parking area. ELAC shall observe utilization of bicycles at the
Firestone Education Center campus each semester and, if necessary, make
arrangements for additional bicycle parking if the demand for bicycle parking
spaces exceeds the supply.
Student Parking Pricing. ELAC shall require that students pay for their own
parking.
Student Hiring Policies. ELAC shall provide preferential consideration to hiring
current ELAC students for part-time employment based on satisfaction of other
requirements of the available positions.
Local Hiring Program. When hiring, ELAC shall conduct outreach to residents
who live within one mile of the Firestone Education Center campus (or other
facility to where the position of employment is offered), based on satisfaction of
other requirements of the available positions.
Expanded Bicycle Routes. ELAC shall coordinate with the City of South Gate in
an effort to enhance and expand the current network of bicycle routes serving
the campus.
Congestion Vehicle trips generated by proposed No feasible mitigation measures were identified. Significant and
Management project would increase traffic demand at a Unavoidable
Plan (CMP) CMP intersection that exceeds CMP
impact threshold criteria. No feasible
mitigation measures were identified to
reduce the significant impact related to the
CMP intersection to less than significant
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
taha 2012-090 2-12

2013 Firestone Education Center Master Plan 3.0 Project Description
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

This chapter provides a detailed description of the proposed 2013 FEC Master Plan (proposed project). The
project description includes a discussion of the background of the proposed project, the project objectives, a
description of existing conditions at the project site and surrounding area, and the estimated time-line for
construction and occupancy of the proposed project.
3.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND

ELAC, part of the LACCD, established the SGEC as a satellite campus in 1997 to better serve a growing
student population that resides in the southern portion of the ELAC's service district. ELAC serves an area
of approximately 100 square miles within Los Angeles County that includes all or parts of Alhambra, Bell,
Bell Gardens, City of Commerce, Cudahy, East Los Angeles, Huntington Park, Los Angeles, Maywood,
Montebello, Monterey Park, Rosemead, San Gabriel, South San Gabriel, South Gate, and Vernon. The
SGEC, located at 2340 Firestone Boulevard in the City of South Gate, is approximately seven miles
southeast of ELAC located at 1301 Avenida Cesar Chavez in the City of Monterey Park.
The SGEC occupies a 51,000-square-foot building with 17 classrooms, a computer lab, a bookstore, a
library, and student support services and offers a variety of career and academic courses. Student enrollment
at the SGEC has increased by about 32 percent between the fall semesters of 2007 and 2011. 1
Approximately 4,912 students were enrolled in classes at the SGEC during the fall semester of 2011. About
2,330 of those students attended classes at both the SGEC and other ELAC locations. 2 Due to rapid student
growth and a lack of adequate facilities and curriculum offerings, the SGEC has become deficient in meeting
the community’s current and future needs. Deficiencies include inadequate parking and the need for many
students to commute to the ELAC campus to supplement their coursework.
The passage of Bond Measure AA in 2003 provided funding to LACCD for the purchase and development of
a new satellite campus site to meet the demand for greater educational access and opportunities for the
communities currently served by the SGEC. In December 2009, LACCD certified the 2009 Final EIR,
which allowed LACCD to acquire the project site with the intent of relocating and expanding the SGEC.
Following the certification of the 2009 Final EIR, a Master Plan and EIR was prepared for the FEC in 2011,
referred to as the 2011 FEC Master Plan. The 2011 FEC Master Plan was never approved nor was the
2011 FEC Master Plan EIR certified. The 2011 FEC Master Plan anticipated a two-phase project that would
ultimately serve up to 12,000 students. However, LACCD has subsequently analyzed capacity load ratios to
ensure new projects are appropriate in concept, scale, and budget. As a result, the programming of the FEC
has now been reduced to accommodate 9,000 students, and the 2011 FEC Master Plan has been updated to
reflect these changes. This Subsequent Draft EIR is being prepared for the updated 2013 FEC Master Plan.
3.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

In accordance with Section 15124 of the CEQA Guidelines, EIRs shall include a statement of objectives of
the proposed project. A description of the project’s objectives defines the project’s intent and facilitates the
formation of project alternatives. The proposed project’s objectives include:
• Provide a full-service education center to replace the existing SGEC and create a true campus
environment for ELAC’s satellite campus;
1
Research, November 19, 2012.
2
Ibid.
taha 2012-090 3-1

• Provide greater capacity to adequately serve the existing and future demand for higher education
facilities in the southeast Los Angeles County region;
• Develop and implement plans and procedures to enhance ELAC satellite campus’ visibility and
reputation for quality;
• Foster a culture of academic excellence by strengthening the educational programs offered at the ELAC
satellite campus that will lead directly to greater student success;
• Create community-oriented development that successfully serves students and the community; and
• Provide economic benefits to the City of South Gate and its residents.
3.3 PROJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING LAND USES

Project Site
The project site is located at 2525 Firestone Boulevard on the northwest corner of the Firestone Boulevard/
Santa Fe Avenue intersection in the City of South Gate within the County of Los Angeles (Figure 3-1). The
18.5-acre project site is bounded on the north by the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) right-of-way, on the
east by Santa Fe Avenue, on the south by Firestone Boulevard, and on the west by a former furniture
manufacturing facility, referred to as the HON site in this Subsequent Draft EIR. The project site is currently
occupied with four two- to four-story buildings (Buildings 1 through 4). Table 3-1 provides a summary of
the characteristics of the existing four buildings.
TABLE 3-1: EXISTING BUILDINGS ON THE PROJECT SITE

Building Number of Stories Buidling Size (Square Feet) Utilized Square Footage
1 Two 455,949 234,152
2 Three 25,087 0
3 Four 366,371 81,514
4 Two 220,550 189,212
Total 1,067,957 504,878
SOURCE: Berliner and Associates, 2013.
Building 1. Building 1, the largest building on the project site, fronts Firestone Boulevard. This two-story,
455,949-square-foot building is partially utilized as a warehouse. Approximately 234,152 square feet of
Building 1 is actively in use. Loading docks are located on the south and east sides of the building. A truck
ramp to the basement is located on the west side of the building.
Building 2. Building 2 is located at the southeast corner of the project site, oriented towards the Firestone
Boulevard/Santa Fe Avenue intersection. This three-story, 25,087-square-foot building was most recently
occupied by the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) South Gate Community Adult School and is
now vacant. Building 2 is connected to Building 1 by a bridge on the second floor.
Building 3. Building 3 is located immediately north of Building 1. This four-story, 366,371-square-foot

building is partially utilized as a warehouse. Approximately 81,514 square feet of Building 3 is actively in
use. Building 3 shares a common wall with Building 1; however, Building 3 is structurally independent and
only a few openings connect both buildings internally. The third and fourth stories partially extend beyond
the building’s footprint over the roof of Building 1. Loading docks are located along the north and east sides
of the building.
Building 4. Building 4 is located on the northeast corner of the project site at the Santa Fe Avenue/Ardmore
Avenue intersection. This two-story, 220,550-square-foot building is partially utilized as a warehouse.
Approximately 189,212 square feet of Building 4 is actively in use. Building 4 was constructed later than the
other buildings on-site, and has a different architectural style than the other three buildings. A passageway
on the first floor, a bridge on the third floor, and an extension of Building 4 connects to Building 3.
taha 2012-090 3-2

5
14
210
118
405
170 5
2 210
101
134
210
210
10
10 60
605
90
5 57
710
105
91 91
405
Pacific
Ocean 110
BROADWAY
SANTA ANA
ST
SANTA ANA
ST
UPRR
PROJECT SITE
RIGH
LIBERTY BL
VD
T-OF-W
FIRESTONE BLVD
AY
UPR
R
RIGHT-OF-
WAY
SANT
A FE
AVE
FIRESTONE
BLVD
92ND ST
SOUTHERN
AVE
ALAM
EDA S
LON
T
GB
KANSAS AV
E
EAC
97TH ST
HB
LVD
TWEEDY BL
VD
LEGEND:
N
Project Site Not to
SCALE
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
taha 2012-090
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report REGIONAL LOCATION
Vehicular Access
Primary vehicular access to Buildings 1, 3, and 4 is presently provided via one driveway on the north side of
Firestone Boulevard, east of Calden Avenue. This driveway provides shared vehicular access with the
adjacent HON site to the west. The property line between these two sites bisects the midpoint of the
driveway and runs generally in a north-south direction. An agreement was previously executed between the
owners of both sites (which runs with the land) that provides for shared use of this driveway. The existing
project site access driveway on Firestone Boulevard is unsignalized and accommodates full access turning
movements (i.e., left-turn and right-turningress and egress turning movements). In addition to the primary
access driveway on Firestone Boulevard, secondary driveways are provided along the west side of Santa Fe
Avenue, just south of Orchard Place and opposite Laurel Place. Vehicular access to Building 2 is provided
via one driveway along the north side of Firestone Boulevard and one driveway along the west side of Santa
Fe Avenue.
Surrounding Land Uses

The project area is influenced by heavy vehicular traffic, freight railroad lines, the Alameda Corridor, and
older residential areas. Most structures in the project area are at least 25 years old, with the exception of
parcels that have been recently redeveloped as chain commercial businesses. An aerial photograph of the
project site and surrounding area is presented in Figure 3-2. As discussed below, surrounding land uses
include commercial, industrial, and residential land uses.
North. A single- and multi-family neighborhood is located immediately north of the adjacent UPRR tracks.
These residential uses extend north for approximately two miles to Slauson Avenue. Residences immediately
north of the UPRR tracks are oriented towards Santa Fe Avenue and buffered from the UPRR tracks by an
unpaved strip of land, fences, and backyards.
East. There are three city blocks located immediately east of the project site between Firestone Boulevard
and the UPPR. The block immediately south of the UPRR right-of-way and north of Orchard Place contains
one of the most noticeable visual features in the project area: an approximately 130-foot water tower located
at the southeast corner of the Santa Fe Avenue/Ardmore Avenue intersection. The block between Orchard
Place and Laurel Place consists of commercial businesses including a discount store, a restaurant, and other
similar commercial uses. The block between Laurel Place and Firestone Boulevard includes a shopping
plaza at the northeast corner of the Santa Fe Avenue/Firestone Boulevard intersection. This shopping plaza
is a commercial strip mall that includes a discount store, a fast food restaurant, a beauty salon, coin laundry, a
dentist’s office, and a surface parking area. Extending further east beyond the commercial strip mall are
multi-family residences and additional commercial uses, including motels. A gas station is located southeast
of the project site at the southeast corner of the Santa Fe Avenue/Firestone Boulevard intersection.
South. There are four city blocks located immediately south of the project site from Santa Fe Avenue to the
Alameda Corridor. 3 The first block, between Tope and Santa Fe Avenues, contains a typical commercial
strip mall that includes a donut shop, coin laundry facility, and cleaners. The three blocks east of the first
block contain automotive-related commercial uses, including a repair shop, an automotive sound shop, a car
wash, an automotive window tinting and detailing shop, a used car dealership, and an engine/transmission
repair shop. Further south of these commercial uses is a single-family residential neighborhood. The SGEC
is located southwest of the project site, just east of the Alameda Corridor and west of the single-family
residential neighborhood.
3
The Alameda Corridor is a 20-mile-long rail cargo expressway linking the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles to the
transcontinental rail network east of downtown Los Angeles. It is a series of bridges, underpasses, overpasses and street
improvements that separate freight trains from street traffic.
taha 2012-090 3-4

CASS PL
SINGLE-/MULTI-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
POPLAR
INDUSTRIAL IN
DE
PL
PE
ND
EN
CE
AV
E
PROJECT SITE UP
RR
Rig
ht-
of-
Wa
y
MIXED
ARDM
ORE A
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL VE
RESID
BUILDING
UPRR
EN
Right-
TIAL
of-Wa
HON SITE
BUILDING
y
COMM
SANTA
3
FE AV
BUILDING
ERCIA
ALAM
E
1
EDA S
T
L
COM
ME
RCI FIR
EST BUILDING
AL
ON
EB
LVD 2
SOUTH GATE
EDUCATION COM
CALD
FIRES
CENTER ME
RCI
A
EN AV
L
TONE
INDUSTRIAL
TOPE
RESIDENTIAL
E
PLAZ
AVE
A
LEGEND: N
APPROX.
Project Site SCALE
0 150 300
SOURCE: Google Earth and TAHA, 2013. Feet
taha 2012-090
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report PROJECT SITE AND
SURROUNDING LAND USES
West. A 32-foot wide driveway separates the project site from the HON site immediately west of the project
site. The HON site consists of five one- to two-story buildings and surface parking. The HON site was most
recently utilized as a furniture manufacturing facility. This facility has since closed. Further west, across
Alameda Street and the Alameda Corridor between Firestone Boulevard and 85th Street are commercial uses,
including a McDonald’s drive-thru restaurant and several industrial auto-related businesses. Residential uses are
located beyond these commercial uses. Heavy industrial uses are located adjacent to the northwest of the HON
site, east of the Alameda Corridor and south of the UPPR tracks.
The project site and the adjacent HON site buildings were once occupied by the Firestone Tire and Rubber
Plant. These buildings were evaluated for historic significance as part of the environmental analysis
conducted as part of the 2009 Final EIR. The two sites were found eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources (California Register) as a Historic District. The Historic District includes
all four buildings on the project site and two buildings on the HON site. The pedestrian bridge connecting
Buildings 1 and 2, the gateposts, guardhouses and wall, which surround both properties, were also found to
be contributing elements to the Historic District.
3.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed project consists of the construction and operation of the FEC, a new LACCD satellite campus
that would replace the existing SGEC, provide for expanded and improved educational facilities, and
accommodate existing and projected student enrollment. The FEC would accommodate up to 9,000 students.
The timeframe for this level of enrollment is uncertain; however, based on LACCD projections, it is assumed
that student enrollment capacity would be met in 2031. 4 The FEC would offer academic programs parallel to
those available at the main ELAC campus and allow students to complete their degree and transfer
requirements at one convenient location.
Building 3, and the construction of a new 100,000-gross-square-foot building and an approximately 1,600-space
parking structure on the northern portion of the project site. 5 In addition, the project site would be improved
with an approximately 60-space surface parking lot, landscaping, an open space area, and other outdoor
amenities. Vehicular access and circulation improvements would also be implemented on- and off-site.
Buildings 1, 2, and 3 would not be used for college uses, and LACCD would continue to lease these facilities to
tenants for warehousing and other appropriate uses. Existing uses within Building 4 would be relocated to
Building 1 or 3. A conceptual site plan is provided in Figure 3-3. The conceptual site plan provides framework
for the development of the FEC campus and is for illustrative purposes only. The final design would result from
the collaboration of ELAC and a Design/Build Team selected to carry the proposed project forward. The final
design plans would identify the footprint, orientation, and design of the proposed building and parking structure.
FEC Building. The new FEC building would be approximately 100,000 gross square feet and three stories
or approximately 50 feet tall. The new FEC building will contain all necessary classrooms, labs, offices, and
support facilities for students to complete their degree and transfer requirements in one location. The
program for the building has been developed through intensive interaction with ELAC administration and
user groups to accommodate a reasonable level of growth and focuses on spaces that serve multiple uses and
reduce redundancy. The FEC building would provide needed science labs and would expand the space
available for Career Technical Education and Liberal Arts and Sciences programs. The number of
classrooms would increase from 17 at the exiting SGEC to 32 at the FEC. The building’s administrative and
student services offices would be located on the ground floor near the main entry.
4
Depending on a number of factors including the economy, State funding and growth restrictions, and availability of
educational facilities elsewhere, the date when this level of enrollment could occur may be delayed.
5
Building 4 is connected to Building 3 through a first floor passageway, a third floor bridge, and a building extension.
taha 2012-090 3-6

UPRR RIGHT-O
F WAY
VE
ORE A
ARDM
NEW PARKING
STRUCTURE
NEW NEW NEW

SURFACE OPEN BUILDING
L
ARD P
PARKING SPACE ORCH
SA
TAN
F
BUILDING 3
EA
VE
EL PL
LAUR
BUILDING 1
BUILDING 2
FIRESTONE BLVD
LEGEND:
Project Site
New Buildings
New Visitor Entry
New Landscaping
New and Improved Internal Roadway
N
New Traffic Signal Approx.
Scale
Existing Buildings Remain As-Is
0 100 200
SOURCE: Berliner and Associates and TAHA, 2013. Feet
taha 2012-090
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
Classrooms, labs and other student support spaces would be on the upper floors. The architecture of the FEC
building would reflect the context of Buildings 1, 2 and 3, which would remain on-site. This translates to a
total building size of approximately 100,000 gross square feet after factoring in circulation, restrooms,
service and other functional requirements.
Parking Structure. The new parking structure would provide approximately 1,600 parking spaces with one
level at grade, five levels above grade, and one partial level below grade. The levels would be naturally
ventilated except the below-grade level, which would have lightwells and may require supplemental
mechanical ventilation. The parking structure would be the tallest structure on the campus with the highest
level at approximately 52 feet, not including potential photovoltaic arrays that could be located on the roof of
the parking structure to generate on-site power. Including a photovoltaic canopy, the height of the overall
structure could be approximately 70 feet. The parking structure would be fully sprinklered, with three means
of egress provided for each level (one exterior stair, two enclosed stairs). Students, faculty, and staff would
primarily use the direct entrance on Santa Fe Avenue, and the other campus entries would be used by
visitors. Self-parking with pre-paid passes or pay-by-space machines would eliminate queueing at “ticket-
spitters” at the parking structure entries.
Landscaping and Open Space. In addition to the new FEC building, open spaces and landscaping are
proposed to enhance the character of the campus. On the eastern border of the project site, a new landscape
buffer or “front yard” would be created between the new building and the Santa Fe Avenue sidewalk. A
central landscaped open space area would be developed at the center of the campus as a place for students to
gather. This area could include active and passive recreation space, amenities for performances and
ceremonies, public art, and greenery and shade. The Design/Build Team would be encouraged to incorporate
distinctive lighting, signage, street furniture, artworks and amenities such as sunshades and decorative paving
to further enhance the campus environment. In addition, the east side of the Firestone Boulevard entry
driveway would be improved with a new sidewalk and landscaping.
Vehicle Circulation. Vehicular access to the project site would be provided via three driveways; two
driveways on the west side of Santa Fe Avenue and a third driveway on the north side of Firestone Boulevard
at the existing shared access driveway with the adjacent HON site. The driveway at Santa Fe Avenue across
from Ardmore Avenue would serve as the main vehicular access point to and from the parking structure. A
traffic signal is proposed to facilitate vehicular access and a northbound left-turn lane would provided on
Santa Fe Avenue at this location. The driveway on Santa Fe Avenue opposite Orchard Place is not proposed
to be signalized and would serve as drop off/pick up location for students and visitors. This driveway would
also be for service vehicles and provide fire access to the project site.
The existing Firestone Boulevard driveway on the north side of Firestone Boulevard, approximately 135 feet
east of Calden Avenue, would be signalized and serve as a primary access point to the project site and the
adjacent HON site if reoccupied with manfucaturing/warehousing uses. As a conditions of approval for the
nearby Calden Court Apartments project, a traffic signal will be installed at the Calden Avenue/Firestone
Boulevard intersection. The signal at the Firestone Boulevard driveway would operate in conjunction with
the Calden Avenue/Firestone Boulevard traffic signal (i.e., in an offset configuration). All vehicular turning
movements would continue to be allowed at the Firestone Boulevard driveway.
If the adjacent HON site is redeveloped as a shopping center, it is assumed that the Applicant of the HON
site project would be required to tie into the Calden Avenue/Firestone Boulevard traffic signal and construct
the fourth leg of the intersection (in the area directly acress from Calden Avenue which is under HON
ownership). 6 Under this condition, the existing Firestone Boulevard driveway would likely be closed and the
north leg of the signalized Calden Avenue/Firestone Boulevard intersection would facilitate vehicular access
for both the redeveloped HON shopping center and the project site. However, these improvements are not
6
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers, Traffic Impact Study 2013 Firestone Educational Center Master Plan,
November 21, 2013.
taha 2012-090 3-8

required for the proposed project, and would only be implemented if and when the HON property is
redeveloped.
One inbound travel lane and one outbound travel lane will remain at the Firestone Boulevard driveway to
accommodate project traffic as well as traffic serving Buildings 1 and 3 and the adjacent HON site. A two-
lane internal campus roadway would connect entries, surface parking, and the parking structure. Turn-out
lanes for passenger drop-offs would be located along this roadway. Fire truck access to within 150 feet of all
building exterior walls would be provided via the internal roadway and designated fire lanes compliant with
Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) requirements. Security gates would also be installed at all
vehicular entries to the main area of the campus to control after-hours access.
Parking. Parking requirements for the FEC’s ultimate 9,000-student population has been established by
LACCD at 1,600 stalls. This parking requirement would be met with the construction of an approximately
1,600-space parking structure and an approximately 60-space surface parking lot located west of the new
FEC building. The surface parking lot would be visible from the entry of the FEC building and is intended
mainly for short-term visitors, guests, and shuttle bus drop-off. Consistent with current practice and parking
designs at other LACCD parking structure facilities, the parking structure access points would not be gate
controlled (i.e., free flow inbound and outbound movements are anticipated). The truck yard north of
Building 3 would be eliminated. The truck yard south of Building 1 and surface parking serving Buildings 1,
2, and 3 would remain in their present use and condition.
Pedestrian Circulation. Most students would drive to the FEC or take a shuttle from the ELAC campus.
There would be few walk-ins from the surrounding neighborhood, and pedestrian traffic would come mostly
from bus stops at the Firestone Boulevard/Santa Fe Avenue intersection. Most students would walk along
Santa Fe Avenue to access the campus. Crosswalks at the newly signalized campus entry would make it
easier for students to reach food and retail on the other side of Santa Fe Avenue.
Sustainability Features. The LACCD Board of Trustees mandates the use of sustainable building practices
for its campuses, and all new buildings that are funded with Measure J Bond monies are required to be
“green” buildings and built to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification
standards. LEED is a national rating system developed by the United States Green Buildings Council
(USGBC) to provide a benchmark for the design, construction, and operation of green buildings. In
accordance with LACCD directives, the FEC would be designed and constructed using the USGBC LEED
rating system. At this time ELAC has not decided which LEED certification level that they will be seeking;
however, the goal is to reach the highest certification level feasible. As part of achieving this LEED
certification, the proposed project includes design strategies related to water efficiency, energy, innovation,
indoor air quality, materials and resources, and site design. Design strategies include, but are not limited to,
low flow water efficiency plumbing fixtures, high performance building envelope, and green power
(e.g., solar energy), green cleaning program, kiosk and signage green education program, the usage of low
volatile organic compounds in building materials, outdoor air delivery monitoring, the usage of recycled
building content (e.g., building materials and fly-ash concrete mixture), sustainable wood, and maximizing
infiltration on-site.
3.5 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE AND PHASING

Construction activities include the demolition of Building 4 and its connections to Building 3, and the
construction of a new approximately 100,000-gross-square-foot building, a 1,600-space parking structure, a
surface parking lot, entry drives, and various campus amenities. Construction is anticipated to begin in late
2015 and be completed in 2018. Occupancy of the FEC is planned for fall 2018.
taha 2012-090 3-9

3.6 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS AND APPROVALS

Approvals required for development of the proposed project include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Master Plan Approval from LACCD Board of Trustees
• Building occupancy and other permits from Division of State Architect (DSA)
• Miscellaneous permits and approvals as necessary from State and/or local agencies to implement the
proposed project and necessary mitigation measures
taha 2012-090 3-10

2013 Firestone Education Center Master Plan 4.0 Environmental Impacts
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

This chapter evaluates the significant environmental impacts that could result from the implementation of the
proposed project. These potential impacts are analyzed for the following environmental issues: aesthetics;
air quality; biological resources; cultural resources; geology and seismicity; greenhouse gas emissions;
hazards and hazardous materials; land use and planning; noise; population, housing and employment; public
services; transportation and traffic; utilities and service systems; and cumulative impacts. Discussion is
focused on the identification of changes that may be considered to be environmentally significant (a
substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment) relative to the existing
environmental conditions. Analysis of each environmental issue is organized to include the following
subsections:
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK – An identification of applicable federal, State and local regulations.
EXISTING SETTING – A description of existing conditions that precede implementation of the proposed
project.
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE – The criteria by which the project components are measured to
determine if the proposed project would cause a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the
existing environmental conditions.
IMPACTS – An analysis of the beneficial and adverse effects of the proposed project, including, where
appropriate, assessments of the significance of potential adverse impacts relative to established thresholds
(relative to existing conditions per CEQA).
MITIGATION MEASURES – Wherever significant adverse impacts relative to existing conditions are
identified in the Impacts subsection, appropriate and reasonable measures are recommended to avoid or
minimize impacts to the extent feasible.
SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS AFTER MITIGATION – A discussion of whether a significant and

unavoidable impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level or to no impact after mitigation under
CEQA or remain significant and unavoidable.
taha 2012-090 4-1

2013 Firestone Education Center Master Plan 4.1 Aesthetics
4.1 AESTHETICS
This section provides an overview of aesthetics and evaluates construction and operational impacts
associated with the proposed project. Topics addressed include visual character, scenic resources, views and
vistas, light and glare, and shade and shadows.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal
There are no federal regulations related to aesthetics that apply to the proposed project.
State
California Scenic Highway Program. The California Scenic Highway Program is a mechanism used by
the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to classify highways meeting specific criteria as
“scenic” throughout California. The purpose of the program is to preserve and protect scenic highway
corridors from changes that would diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to highways. According to
Caltrans, “a highway may be designated scenic depending upon how much of the natural landscape can be
seen by travelers, the scenic quality of the landscape, and the extent to which development intrudes upon the
traveler’s enjoyment of the view.” No designated scenic highways are located in the City of South Gate.
Local
City of South Gate General Plan Community Design Element. The General Plan Community Design
Element provides policy guidance to protect and improve the visual character and quality of the City of
South Gate. The project site is identified in the Community Design Element as being located within
Subarea 1 of the South Gate College District (SGCD). While California Government Code Section 53094
includes provisions for school districts to exempt classroom facilities from local zoning regulations,
applicable objectives and policies of the City’s General Plan related to aesthetics are listed in Table 4.1-1.
City of South Gate Municipal Code (SGMC), Title 11 Comprehensive Zoning Code. Title 11 of the
SGMC known as the Comprehensive Zoning Code includes provisions that regulate, and restrict land uses,
the height and bulk of buildings, and the area of yards and other open spaces. The Comprehensive Zoning
Code includes design standards that seek to regulate the physical alteration of streets, intersections, alleys,
pedestrian walkways, and landscaping. However, California Government Code Section 53094 includes
provisions for school districts to exempt classroom facilities from local zoning regulations.
TABLE 4.1-1: APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RELATED TO

AESTHETICS
Objective/Policy Objective/Policy Description
COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
Objective CD 2.5 Ensure that public and institutional uses, such as government and administrative offices, recreation facilities,
senior and youth centers and educational uses adequately support existing and future populations.
Policy P.4 Public buildings and sites will be designed to be compatible in scale, mass, and character with the vision for the
specific Neighborhood, District, or Corridor.
Objective CD 3.2 Minimize the impact of parking on the pedestrian environment and residential neighborhoods.
Policy P.1 Parking lots for new buildings should be located behind or on the side of buildings to reduce their visual impact.
Policy P.2 Large parking lots should be sited to avoid potential impacts to adjacent residential areas or buffered from the
residential uses.
Policy P.3 Parking lots for new buildings that front a sidewalk should include landscaping between the parking lot and the
sidewalk.
taha 2012-090 4.1-1


AESTHETICS
Policy P.4 Where parking lots front the street, The City will work with existing property owners to add landscaping
between the parking lot and the street.
Policy P.5 Parking lots should be landscaped to create an attractive pedestrian environment and reduce the impact of
heat islands.
Policy P.9 Above-ground parking structures should be designed according to the same urban design principles as other
buildings.
Objective CD 6.1 Create a series of distinct Districts throughout the City, each with its own character, identity and mix of uses.
Policy P.7 Iconic, high quality urban design and architecture should be pursued with new projects in all the Districts in
order to improve the aesthetics of the City.
Objective CD 6.2 Design landscaping, buildings, and sites to enhance the pedestrian environment and enhance the urban
character of the City’s Districts.
Policy P.1 New development in Districts will be designed and developed to achieve a high level of quality and distinctive
character and architecture.
Policy P.2 Publicly-accessible parks and open space will be required in new projects of 5 acres or more in any District.
Policy P.3 With the possible exception of some manufacturing and distribution uses, new buildings and substantial
remodels in Districts will be sited and designed to enhance pedestrian activity along sidewalks, including but
not limited to:
• Providing maximum window exposure and minimizing “blank wall” exposure to the sidewalk and street.
• Integrating sidewalks, plazas and other amenities that contribute to pedestrian-oriented activities.
• Incorporating uses in the first floor along the street frontage that stimulate pedestrian activity.
• Siting the linear frontage of the building along or near the front property line and near the sidewalk to
maintain a no-setback or minimal-setback building that runs along the sidewalk or property line in a
“building wall” design, which is more pleasant and accessible for pedestrians.
• Incorporating landscaping that visually distinguishes the site or structure.
• Incorporating building articulation of the façade and the use of multiple building volumes and planes.
• Using rooflines and height variations to break up the massing and provide visual interest.
• Providing distinct treatment of building entrances.
• Limiting the street wall height to no more than 50 feet. Floors above 50 feet should be set back from the
street wall to preserve light and air.
Policy P.4 Buildings adjacent to lower scale residential development should step down toward the residential uses or
provide other buffering techniques.
Policy P.5 The City and private developments in Districts will plant street trees that create an attractive pedestrian
environment. Street trees should be planted at regular intervals and should provide shade and protection for
pedestrians.
Objective CD 8.1 Ensure high quality architecture and urban design throughout the City.
Policy P.1 The City will encourage innovative and quality architecture in the City with all new public and private projects.
Policy P.2 New buildings will be constructed to create attractive, pedestrian-friendly places.
Policy P.3 High-quality and long-lasting building materials will be required on all new non-residential and multi-family
housing projects.
Policy P.4 New non-residential and multi-family buildings will be designed with attractive and inviting frontage on all public
streets.
Objective CD 8.3 Improve the visual quality of Corridors and Districts.
Policy P.2 To the extent feasible, utilities should be undergrounded along Corridors and in Districts during highway repair
or widening projects, streetscape improvement projects, construction of new development projects or as funds
become available.
Policy P.3 Public art and other design features should be used to enliven the public realm.
Objective CD 9.1 Identify and preserve cultural and historic resources.
Policy P.1 Historic or culturally significant buildings and other resources in South Gate should be preserved and enhanced
to contribute to the character of the community.
SGCD Policy P.9 To the extent feasible, the existing Firestone Tire factory building should be adaptively reused and the building
façade preserved.
SOURCE: City of South Gate, South Gate General Plan 2035.
taha 2012-090 4.1-2

EXISTING SETTING
Visual Character
Visual character can be defined as the overall impression formed by the relationship between visual elements
of the built environment. Elements contributing to this impression include:
• The nature and quality of buildings
• The visibility of scenic resources
• The compatibility between uses and activities
• The quality of the streetscape, including roadways, sidewalks, plazas, parks and street furniture
• The nature and quality of private property landscaping visible to the general public
The 18.5-acre project site is located at the northwest corner of the Firestone Boulevard/Santa Fe Avenue
intersection in the City of South Gate. The project site is bounded on the north by the UPRR right-of-way,
on the east by Santa Fe Avenue, on the south by Firestone Boulevard, and on the west by a former furniture
manufacturing facility (HON site). As discussed in Section 4.3 Cultural Resources, the project site and the
adjacent HON site were once occupied by the former Firestone Tire and Rubber Plant and are part of the
South Gate Historic District, which is eligible for listing in the California Register. The South Gate Historic
District includes all four buildings on the project site and two buildings on the HON site. A 35-foot wide
driveway separates the HON site from the project site and is used as ingress and egress for both sites.
The project site is currently developed with four buildings two- to four-stories tall and surface parking areas.
There is minimal landscaping on the site with the exception of a few trees and shrubs scattered throughout
the project site along the perimeter of buildings and at the Firestone Boulevard/Santa Fe Avenue intersection.
The four buildings on the project were constructed between the 1920s and 1950s. Buildings 1, 2, and 3 were
constructed in 1928, and Building 4 was constructed in 1951. 1 Although constructed at different times, the
architectural elements of the buildings exhibit similar characteristics in scale, massing, and building
materials. Each building exhibits smooth exterior building surfaces with beige tones. Rooftop styles vary
from flat roof to pitched, some of which are asymmetrical.
As shown in Figure 4.1-1, Building 1 is a two-story industrial-type building of substantial mass and scale
along most of the Firestone Boulevard frontage. The eastern end of the building extends to Santa Fe Avenue.
Loading docks are located on the south and east sides of the building. A truck ramp to the basement is
located on the east side of the building. Building 1 is setback approximately 90 feet from Firestone
Boulevard and creates a “walled” appearance due to the continuity of the façade and lack of pedestrian
entrances.
Building 2 is a three-story building located on the southeast corner of the project site at the Firestone
Boulevard/Santa Fe Avenue intersection. Building 2 once served as the administration building for the
Firestone Tire and Rubber Plant executives. Unlike the adjacent buildings on the project site and in the
project area, Building 2 is oriented towards the Firestone Boulevard/Santa Fe Avenue intersection. While
Building 2 exhibits similar architectural characteristics of Buildings 1, 3, and 4, Building 2 features several
ornamental elements such as the clock tower and glass entryway. Building 2 is setback from the Firestone
Boulevard/Santa Fe Avenue intersection by a surface parking lot. A low wall with fencing extends along the
perimeter of the parking lot at the sidewalk. Several palm trees are planted along this wall. A pedestrian
bridge connects the west side of Building 2 to Building 1. Figure 4.1-1 shows the orientation of Building 2
and its ornamental elements that make it visually distinct from the other three buildings on-site.
1
AES Due Diligence, Inc., Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update, South Gate Industrial Park-Parcel 1B,
2525 Firestone Boulevard, South Gate, Los Angeles County, California 90280, June 18, 2003.
taha 2012-090 4.1-3

View of the south-facing façade of Building 1 from Firestone Boulevard.
View of Building 2 on the southeast corner of the project site at the Firestone
Boulevard/Santa Fe Avenue intersection.
SOURCE: TAHA, 2012.
2013 Firestone Education Center Master Plan FIGURE 4.1-1
taha 2012-090
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report VIEWS OF BUILDINGS 1 AND 2
Building 3, adjacent to Building 1 on the north, is a four-story building with a length equal to Building 1.
Building 3 shares a common wall with Building 1; however, Building 3 is structurally independent and only
a few openings connect both buildings internally. The third and fourth stories partially extend beyond the
building’s footprint over the roof of Building 1. Loading docks are located along the north and east side of
the building. Figure 4.1-2 illustrates Building 3’s relationship to Building 1 and Santa Fe Avenue.
Building 4, which fronts Santa Fe Avenue is a two-story industrial-type building located on the northeast
corner of the project site at the Santa Fe/Ardmore Avenues intersection. A passageway on the first floor, a
bridge on the third floor, and an extension of Building 4 connects to Building 3. Although Building 4 was
constructed later than Buildings 1, 2, and 3, it exhibits similar surface characteristics to the other buildings,
including smooth exterior building surfaces and beige tones. Figure 4.1-2, shows that similar to Building 1,
Building 4 also creates a “walled” appearance due to the continuity of the façade and lack of pedestrian
entrances and window openings. The UPRR right-of-way abuts Building 4 to the north. Freight train travel
on this section of the UPRR right-of-way is infrequent; however, this section of the tracks is still classified as
active. Fences separate the UPRR from the project site to the south and from the residences to the north. As
shown in Figure 4.1-3, the UPRR right-of-way functions as a transition zone between the project site and the
residential area to the north with fences on both sides.
The area surrounding the project site is developed with a mix of uses including commercial, industrial, and
residential uses. The visual character of the project area is influenced by vehicular traffic, freight railroad
lines, and older residential structures. Most buildings in the project area are at least 25 years old, with the
exception of parcels that have been recently redeveloped as chain commercial businesses. The overall area is
auto-oriented with wide roads and multiple surface parking lots in the midst of industrial and commercial
properties. The main roads, Firestone Boulevard and Santa Fe Avenue, have two traffic lanes in each
direction along with a left-hand turn lane in the middle of the street. Strip mall commercial centers or
industrial uses fronting Firestone Boulevard are setback by associated surface parking lots.
One-story commercial storefronts line Santa Fe Avenue. Street trees are prevalent in the residential areas,
and Firestone Boulevard is lined with many street trees. Santa Fe Avenue, on the other hand, is largely
devoid of trees and landscaping. The commercial/industrial and residential areas in the immediate vicinity of
the project site is described in more detail below.
North. North of the UPRR tracks, Santa Fe Avenue transitions into the single- and multi-family
neighborhood of Walnut Park. The residencies on Santa Fe Avenue are one to two stories with setback
lengths varying from 10 to 25 feet. These residential setbacks are typically front yard areas. The backyards
of the homes along the south side of Santa Fe Avenue boundary the UPRR tracks. Wooden and concrete
fences separate the residences from the UPRR right-of-way. Also north of the UPRR tracks is a large
industrial use that is situated between Alameda Street to the west and residences to the east.
East. Santa Fe Avenue is primarily residential in character except for the commercial uses located directly
east of the project site along Santa Fe Avenue. On the northeast corner of the Santa Fe Avenue/Firestone
Boulevard intersection is a typical commercial strip mall that includes a discount store, restaurant, beauty
salon, coin laundry, a dentist’s office, and surface parking area. South of Firestone Boulevard, Santa Fe
Avenue includes multi- and single-family residences. One of the most prominent visual features in the
project area is an approximately 130-feet tall water tower located at the southeast corner the Santa
Fe/Ardmore Avenues intersection, just south of the UPRR tracks (Figure 4.1-4).
taha 2012-090 4.1-5

Building 3
Building 1
Building 4
View of the east-facing façade of Building 3 from Santa Fe Avenue.
Building 3
Building 4
View of the east-facing façade of Building 4 from Santa Fe Avenue.
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
taha 2012-090
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report VIEWS OF BUILDINGS 3 AND 4
Building 4
Residences
View of the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way and residences located north of the project site.
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
taha 2012-090
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report VIEW OF THE UNION PACIFIC
RAILROAD TRACKS
View from Orchard Place of the 130-foot tall water tower located at the Santa Fe/Ardmore
Avenues intersection.
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
taha 2012-090
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report VIEW OF THE WATER TOWER
South. Firestone Boulevard is the major east-west, commercial/industrial corridor in the City of South Gate.
Commercial uses, including auto-related and restaurant/fast food related establishments, dominate this street
in the project area (Figure 4.1-5). South of the project site, along Firestone Boulevard, are the following
businesses: a gas station, donut shop, coin laundry facility, auto repair shop, auto sound shop, car wash, auto
window tinting and detailing shop, used car dealership, and an engine/transmission repair shop. All of the
commercial and dining establishments along this street are of the typical commercial strip mall scale and
massing (one to two stories with surface parking in front). Setbacks vary along Firestone Boulevard from
zero to approximately 90 feet.
West. A 35-foot wide driveway is shared by the project site and the HON site immediately west of the
project site. The HON site was also once occupied by the former Firestone Tire and Rubber Plant, and the
buildings on both the HON site and the project site comprised the former Firestone Tire and Rubber Plant.
The HON site consists of three closely-spaced industrial-type buildings, and two small steel buildings,
surface parking, and loading areas. The existing buildings on the HON site were constructed in the early
1940s to mid 1950s. 2 The two largest buildings, located in the southern portion of the site exhibit smooth
exterior building surfaces with beige tones and flat rooftop styles. The remaining buildings exhibit steel
façades with rooftop styles varying from A-frame to round.
To the west of Alameda Street and the Alameda Corridor, between Firestone Boulevard and 85th Street, are
commercial uses. These commercial businesses include a McDonald’s drive-thru restaurant and several
industrial automotive-related businesses. Residential uses are located further west of these commercial uses.
A large, heavy industrial use is located adjacent to the northwest of the HON site, east of the Alameda
Corridor and south of the UPPR tracks.
Scenic Resources
There are no designated scenic resources in the City of South Gate, and the nearest officially designated state
scenic highway is State Route 2 (Angeles Crest Highway), located approximately 15 miles north of the
project site. 3,4 However, as described above and in Section 4.3 Cultural Resources, there are several historic
resources on the project site, and the site is part of a Historic District which is eligible for listing in the
California Register. Building 4, the pedestrian bridge connecting Buildings 1 and 2, the gateposts, and the
wall, which surround both properties, are considered contributing elements to the South Gate Historic
District. While Buildings 1, 2, and 3 are all individually eligible for listing in the California Register,
Building 4 is not. Building 4 retains the same color and exterior cladding as the other buildings; however, it
was built later than and in a different style than Buildings 1, 2, and 3. Therefore, Building 4 was determined
to be a contributor to the South Gate Historic District and not individually eligible for listing in the California
Register. In addition to historic buildings on the project site, another prominent visual feature in the project
area is an approximately 130-foot water tower located at the southeast corner of the Santa Fe
Avenue/Ardmore Avenue intersection.
While not a City-designated scenic resource, this water tower is a significant visual feature adjacent to the
project site across Santa Fe Avenue that is visible from a number of vantage points in the surrounding area.
2
Andersen Environmental, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Performed at Firestone Parcel 1A, 2323 Firestone
Boulevard, South Gate, California 90280, September 28, 2009.
3
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), California Scenic Highway Program 1999, Available at:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm, accessed January 18, 2011.
4
RBF Consulting, South Gate 2035 General Plan Environmental Impact Report, 2009.
taha 2012-090 4.1-9

View of commercial businesses along the south side of Firestone Boulevard, looking east.
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
taha 2012-090
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report VIEW OF COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES
ALONG FIRESTONE BOULEVARD
Views and Vistas

Scenic views refer to the visibility of a focal point or panoramic view. In general, the availability of views is
closely tied to topography and distances from visual features and resources. The project site is a major visual
feature in the project area due to the distinctive architecture of Building 2, the dominant presence of
Building 1 and the high visibility of the Buildings 1 and 2 from Firestone Boulevard which is a major arterial
roadway in the City of South Gate. Views of the South Gate Historic District, which includes all four
buildings on the project site, can be seen from the Firestone Boulevard/Santa Fe Avenue intersection. Views
of Building 4 are available from Santa Fe Avenue, Ardmore Avenue and Orchard Place. Views of
Building 4 are not available from Firestone Boulevard due to height and dominance of Building 1.
Views from the project site include the commercial businesses on Firestone Boulevard and Santa Fe Avenue,
the UPRR right-of-way, and an approximately 130-foot tall water tower. This water tower is prominent
landmark at the Santa Fe/Ardmore Avenues intersection. Views of the water tower can be seen looking
north and south from Santa Fe Avenue and west from Orchard Place. In addition, channelized views of the
San Gabriel Mountains are available in the vicinity of the project site. The foothills of the San Gabriel
Mountains begin approximately 15 miles to the north of the project site and comprise a north-facing view for
pedestrians and motorists along north-south streets. Typically, the articulation of the mountains is not clearly
discernible from the project site due to the height and density of development, presence of smog, and
distance to the mountains. Any buildings exceeding one-story in height block views of the mountains to the
north. Existing foreground views are primarily of commercial and industrial land uses of one to four stories
in height. Due to the high density of urban development and the project site’s location in a flat portion of the
Los Angeles Basin, views within the neighborhood are generally limited to the immediate area. There are no
other views or vistas in the project area.
Light and Glare
The project site is located in a dense urban area with a high level of ambient light due to street lighting,
vehicle headlights, and site security. The project site itself has its own wayfinding and security lighting.
Each street bordering the project site is lined with approximately 30-foot tall street lights. Glare or perceived
brightness is characterized as a diffused light, which is generated or reflected from a surface, often causing a
nuisance to the viewer. However, the majority of existing buildings in the project area are comprised of non-
reflective materials, such as concrete and plaster. Light sensitive receptors in the project area are limited to
residences to the north and east of the project site.
Shade and Shadow

Shadows are cast in a clockwise direction from the west/northwest to the east/northeast from approximately
7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., or later depending on the time of the year. Generally, the shortest shadows are cast
during the Summer Solstice and grow increasingly longer until the Winter Solstice. During the Winter
Solstice, the sun appears lower in the sky and shadows are at their maximum coverage lengths. Shadow-
sensitive uses generally include routinely useable outdoor spaces associated with residential, recreational, or
institutional land uses; commercial uses, such as pedestrian-oriented outdoor spaces or restaurants with
outdoor dining areas; nurseries; and existing solar collectors/panels. Shadow sensitive uses in the vicinity of
the project site include usable outdoor spaces associated with the residential uses located to the north and
northeast of the project site. Figures 4.1-6 through 4.1-8 show the existing shadows cast by Building 4. As
shown, late afternoon shadows during the spring, fall and winter from Building 4 are cast onto the residences
to the north and northeast of the project site.
taha 2012-090 4.1-11

INDEP INDEP INDEP
ENDEN ENDEN ENDEN
CE AVE CE AVE CE AVE
UPR UPR UPR
RR RR RR
igh igh igh
t-of t-of t-of
-Wa -Wa -Wa
y y y
SANTA
SANTA
SANTA
FE AV
FE AV
FE AV
E
E
E
9:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. 11:00 a.m.
INDEP INDEP INDEP

ENDEN ENDEN ENDEN
UPR CE AVE CE AVE CE AVE
RR UPR UPR
igh RR RR
t-of igh igh
-Wa t-of t-of
y -Wa -Wa
y y
SANTA
SANTA
SANTA
FE AV
FE AV
FE AV
E
E
12:00 p.m. 1:00 p.m. 2:00 p.m.
INDEP INDEP INDEP

ENDEN ENDEN ENDEN
UPR UPR UPR
RR RR RR
igh igh igh
t-of t-of t-of
-Wa -Wa -Wa
y y y
SANTA
SANTA
SANTA
FE AV
FE AV
FE AV
E
E
3:00 p.m. 4:00 p.m. 5:00 p.m.
LEGEND: N
Approx.
Scale
Existing Building 4
0 200 400
taha 2012-090
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report EXISTING BUILDING 4
SUMMER SOLSTICE SHADOWS
INDEP INDEP INDEP
ENDEN ENDEN ENDEN
UPR UPR UPR
RR RR RR
igh igh igh
t-of t-of t-of
-Wa -Wa -Wa
y y y
SANTA
SANTA
SANTA
FE AV
FE AV
FE AV
E
E
9:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. 11:00 a.m.
INDEP INDEP INDEP

ENDEN ENDEN ENDEN
RR UPR UPR
igh RR RR
t-of igh igh
-Wa t-of t-of
y -Wa -Wa
y y
SANTA
SANTA
SANTA
FE AV
FE AV
FE AV
E
E
12:00 p.m. 1:00 p.m. 2:00 p.m.
INDEP INDEP INDEP

ENDEN ENDEN ENDEN
UPR UPR UPR
RR RR RR
igh igh igh
t-of t-of t-of
-Wa -Wa -Wa
y y y
SANTA
SANTA
SANTA
FE AV
FE AV
FE AV
E
3:00 p.m. 4:00 p.m. 5:00 p.m.
LEGEND: N
Approx.
Existing Building 4 Scale
0 200 400
taha 2012-090
SPRING/FALL EQUINOX SHADOWS
INDEP INDEP INDEP
ENDEN ENDEN ENDEN
UPR UPR
RR RR RR
igh igh igh
t-of t-of t-of
-Wa -Wa -Wa
y y y
SANTA
SANTA
SANTA
FE AV
FE AV
FE AV
E
E
9:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. 11:00 a.m.
INDEP INDEP INDEP

ENDEN ENDEN ENDEN
RR UPR UPR
igh RR RR
t-of igh igh
-Wa t-of t-of
y -Wa -Wa
y y
SANTA
SANTA
SANTA
FE AV
FE AV
FE AV
E
E
12:00 p.m. 1:00 p.m. 2:00 p.m.
INDEP
ENDEN
CE AVE
UPR
RR
igh
t-of
-Wa
y
SANTA
FE AV
E
3:00 p.m.
N
LEGEND: Approx.
Scale
Project Site
0 200 400
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013. Feet
taha 2012-090
WINTER SOLSTICE SHADOWS
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
In accordance with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would have a significant
impact related to aesthetics if it would:
• Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista;
• Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway;
• Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings; and/or
• Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in
the area.
Thresholds related to project shadow impacts upon the environment are not included in Appendix G of the
State CEQA Guidelines. However, for the purposes of this Subsequent EIR the following threshold will be
used to evaluate project impacts related to shadows:
• A project impact would be considered significant if shadow-sensitive uses would be shaded by project-
related structures for more than three hours between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Pacific
Standard Time between late October and early April, or for more than four hours between the hours of
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time between early April and late October.
IMPACTS
CONSTRUCTION
Construction of the proposed project would be temporary and no impacts related to aesthetics would occur.
Therefore, no further discussion of construction impacts is necessary.
OPERATIONS
Visual Character
In general, evaluation of visual character is determined by the degree of contrast that could potentially result
between the proposed project and the existing built environment. Contrast is assessed by considering the
consistency of the following features of a proposed project with those of the existing built environment. The
proposed project would alter, but not degrade, the visual character of the existing environment.
Implementation of the proposed project would result in the demolition of Building 4, which is considered a
historic resource, because it contributes to the California Register-eligible South Gate Historic District.
However, Building 4 was determined not to be eligible for individual listing on the California Register.
Buildings 1, 2, and 3, which were determined to be eligible for individual listing on the California Register
would remain under the proposed project. These buildings would continue to be dominant visual features on
the project site; and the historic character of the project site would be retained. While design of the proposed
FEC building has not been finalized, the design would follow specific design criteria. The design criteria
calls for the architecture of the FEC building to be of high quality, sustainable, and enduring with the
character of an educational institution that would be attractive and inspirational for its students, faculty, and
staff, and a symbol of renewal and revitalization for the community at large. Figure 4-1.9 demonstrates the
type of architecture that would inspire the FEC building design.
taha 2012-090 4.1-15

SOURCE: Berliner and Associates and TAHA, 2013.
taha 2012-090
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report DESIGN INSPIRATION FOR FEC
BUILDING ARCHITECTURE
With regard to building height, the proposed FEC building at 50 feet tall (three stories) would be consistent
with existing building heights, which range from two- to four-stories. The removal of Building 4 would not
degrade the project site because it is not one of the prominent buildings on-site, and its removal would not
take away from the quality of the existing buildings that would remain. The parking structure at 70 feet tall
is higher than the existing buildings on-site, but it would only be visible from Santa Fe Avenue. In addition,
the street edge of the project site along Santa Fe Avenue would be landscaped, which would improve the
quality of the visual character in the community and provide a connection to the surrounding neighborhood.
Therefore, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to visual character.
Scenic Resources
The project site is part of a South Gate Historic District eligible for listing on the California Register.
Accordingly, all of the buildings on the project site are considered historic resources under CEQA.
Therefore, the demolition of Building 4 and its connections to Building 3 would result in the removal and
alteration of historic resources. While Building 4 is considered a contributing resource to the South Gate
Historic District, it is not a dominant visual feature of the project site. Dominant visual features on the
project site include Building 2 due to its distinctive architecture and Buildings 1 due its substantial scale and
mass. Both Buildings 1 and 2 are located on Firestone Boulevard, a major arterial in the City of South Gate,
making them widely visible from the surrounding area and motorists. Due to the height and scale of
Building 1 and orientation of the buildings on the project site, Building 4 is only visible from Santa Fe
Avenue. Accordingly, its removal would not be evident from Firestone Boulevard, nor would it alter the
visibility of dominant visual features. Nonetheless, Building 4 is not located in a State-designated scenic
highway. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to scenic
resources.
Views and Vistas

Views of Buildings 1 and 2 and the water tower are considered significant visual features in the project area.
Views of these structures are available from vantage points on and surrounding the project site. The proposed
FEC building and parking structure would not block views of Buildings 1 and 2 or the water tower. Although
the proposed 50-foot-tall FEC building and 70-foot-tall parking structure would be taller than Building 4, these
buildings would be located behind Buildings 1 and 2, and therefore would not be situated such that views of
these significant visual features would be obstructed. Also, considering that the height of the water tower is
approximately130 feet tall and the height of the proposed parking structure would be 70 feet tall, the water tower
would continue to be visible from vantage points throughout the City of South Gate. While the proposed project
would introduce new visual features to the project site, altering views of the project site primarily from Santa Fe
Avenue, the proposed FEC building and parking structure would not adversely affect scenic views as views of
significant visual features would continue to be available. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less-
than-significant impacts related to views and vistas.
Light and Glare

Light impacts are typically associated with the use of artificial light during the evening and nighttime hours,
car headlights, and the potential for spillover lighting onto adjacent residential properties. The project site is
currently used for warehousing with the majority of activity occurring during business hours. The proposed
project would extend the operating hours of the site into the evening with nighttime classes in the FEC
building and the operation of the parking structure, adding further illumination to the site. However, lighting
for the campus would include directional lighting techniques and low wattage bulbs that direct light
downwards and minimizes light spillover to adjacent residential uses. Therefore, the proposed project would
result in less-than-significant impacts related to light and glare.
taha 2012-090 4.1-17

Shade and Shadow

Shadow impacts are considered to be significant when they cover shadow-sensitive uses for more than three
hours between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. between late October and early April. They are also
considered significant if they cover shadow-sensitive uses for more than four hours between the hours of
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. between early April and late October. As described above, shadow sensitive uses in
the vicinity of the project site include usable outdoor spaces associated with the residential uses located to the
north and northeast of the project site. The proposed project includes the construction of a 50-foot tall FEC
building and a 70-foot tall parking structure. Figures 4.1-10 through 4.1-12 illustrate the shadows that
would be cast from the new building and parking structure. As shown, no project-related shadows would be
cast onto any residences during the summer months. During the spring and fall months, shadows would not
be cast onto the single-family residences along Independence Avenue until 5:00 p.m. During the winter
months, shadows would be cast onto the single-family residences residencies along Independence Avenue
from 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. However, shadow sensitive uses (the rear and front yard areas of these
residencies) would not be covered by project-related shadows for more than the three-hour significance
threshold. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to shade and
shadows.
MITIGATION MEASURES
CONSTRUCTION
No impacts related to aesthetics would occur. No mitigation measures are required.
OPERATIONS
Impacts related to visual character, scenic resources, views and vistas, light and glare, and shade and
shadows would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS AFTER MITIGATION
CONSTRUCTION
No impact related to aesthetics would occur.
OPERATIONS
Impacts related to visual character, scenic resources, views and vistas, light and glare, and shade and
shadows were determined to be less than significant without mitigation.
taha 2012-090 4.1-18

IND IND IND
EPE EPE EPE
UPR ND UPR ND UPR ND
RR ENC RR ENC RR ENC
igh EA igh EA igh EA
t-of VE t-of VE t-of VE
-Wa -Wa -Wa
y y y
SANTA
SANTA
SANTA
FE AV
FE AV
FE AV
E
E
E
9:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. 11:00 a.m.
IND IND IND
EPE UPR EPE EPE
UPR ND RR ND UPR ND
RR ENC igh ENC RR ENC
igh EA t-of EA igh EA
t-of VE -Wa VE t-of VE
-Wa y -Wa
y y
SANTA
SANTA
SANTA
FE AV
FE AV
FE AV
E
E
12:00 p.m. 1:00 p.m. 2:00 p.m.

IND IND IND
UPR EPE EPE UPR EPE
ND UPR ND ND
RR ENC RR ENC RR ENC
igh EA igh EA igh EA
t-of VE t-of VE t-of VE
-Wa -Wa -Wa
y y y
SANTA
SANTA
SANTA
FE AV
FE AV
FE AV
E
E
E
3:00 p.m. 4:00 p.m. 5:00 p.m.
LEGEND:
N
Project Site Approx.
Scale
New Building and Parking Structure
0 275 550
taha 2012-090
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report NEW BUILDING AND PARKING STRUCTURE
SUMMER SOLSTICE SHADOWS
IND UPR IND IND
UPR EPE EPE UPR EPE
RR ND RR ND RR ND
igh ENC igh ENC igh ENC
t-of EA t-of EA t-of EA
-Wa VE -Wa VE -Wa VE
y y y
SANTA
SANTA
SANTA
FE AV
FE AV
FE AV
E
E
9:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. 11:00 a.m.
IND IND IND
UPR EPE UPR EPE UPR EPE
RR ND RR ND RR ND
y y y
SANTA
SANTA
SANTA
FE AV
FE AV
FE AV
E
E
E
12:00 p.m. 1:00 p.m. 2:00 p.m.
IND IND IND
RR ND RR ND RR ND
y y y
SANTA
SANTA
SANTA
FE AV
FE AV
FE AV
E
E
3:00 p.m. 4:00 p.m. 5:00 p.m.
LEGEND:
N
Scale
0 275 550
taha 2012-090
SPRING/FALL EQUINOX SHADOWS
IND UPR IND IND
UPR EPE EPE UPR EPE
RR ND RR ND RR ND
y y y
SANTA
SANTA
SANTA
FE AV
FE AV
FE AV
E
E
E
9:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. 11:00 a.m.
IND IND IND
RR ND RR ND RR ND
y y y
SANTA
SANTA
SANTA
FE AV
FE AV
FE AV
E
E
E
12:00 p.m. 1:00 p.m. 2:00 p.m.
IND
UPR EPE
RR ND
igh ENC
t-of EA
-Wa VE
y
SANTA
FE AV
E
3:00 p.m.
LEGEND:
N
Scale
0 275 550
taha 2012-090
WINTER SOLSTICE SHADOWS
2013 Firestone Education Center Master Plan 4.2 Air Quality
4.2 AIR QUALITY

This section provides an overview of existing air quality conditions and evaluates the construction and
operational impacts associated with the proposed project. Supporting data and calculations are included in
Appendix B. Both short-term construction emissions occurring from activities, such as site grading and haul
truck trips, and long-term effects related to the ongoing operation of the proposed project are discussed in
this section. This analysis focuses on air pollution from two perspectives: daily emissions and pollutant
concentrations. “Emissions” refer to the quantity of pollutants released into the air, measured in pounds per
day (ppd). “Concentrations” refer to the amount of pollutant material per volumetric unit of air, measured in
parts per million (ppm) or micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3). The following defines the pollutants
discussed in this analysis.
Pollutants and Effects

The federal and State governments have established ambient air quality standards for outdoor concentrations
of six common pollutants, called criteria pollutants, to protect public health. The criteria pollutant standards
have been set at levels above which concentrations could be harmful to human health and welfare. These
standards are designed to protect the most sensitive persons from illness or discomfort. Criteria pollutants
include carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter
2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2.5), particulate matter ten microns or less in diameter (PM10), and lead
(Pb). These pollutants are discussed below.
Carbon Monoxide (CO). CO is a colorless and odorless gas formed by the incomplete combustion of fossil
fuels. CO is emitted almost exclusively from motor vehicles, power plants, refineries, industrial boilers,
ships, aircraft and trains. In urban areas such as the project location, automobile exhaust accounts for the
majority of CO emissions. CO is a non-reactive air pollutant that dissipates relatively quickly, so ambient
CO concentrations generally follows the spacial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic. CO
concentrations are influenced by local meteorological conditions, primarily wind speed, topography and
atmospheric stability. CO from motor vehicle exhaust can become locally concentrated when surface-based
temperature inversions are combined with calm atmospheric conditions, a typical situation at dusk in urban
areas between November and February. Inversion is an atmospheric condition in which a layer of warm air
traps cooler air near the surface of the earth, preventing the normal rising of surface air. The highest levels
of CO typically occur during the colder months of the year when inversion conditions are more frequent. In
terms of health, CO competes with oxygen, often replacing it in the blood, thus reducing the blood’s ability
to transport oxygen to vital organs. The results of excess CO exposure can be dizziness, fatigue, and
impairment of central nervous system functions.
Ozone (O3). O3 a colorless gas that is formed in the atmosphere when reactive organic gases (ROG), which
includes volatile organic compounds (VOC) and NOX react in the presence of ultraviolet sunlight. O3 is not a
primary pollutant; it is a secondary pollutant formed by complex interactions of two pollutants directly
emitted into the atmosphere. The primary sources of ROG and NOX, components of O3, are automobile
exhaust and industrial sources. Meteorology and terrain play major roles in O3 formation. Ideal conditions
occur during summer and early autumn, on days with low wind speeds or stagnant air, warm temperatures
and cloudless skies. The greatest source of smog-producing gases is the automobile. Short-term exposure
(lasting for a few hours) to O3 at levels typically observed in Southern California can result in breathing
pattern changes, reduction of breathing capacity, increased susceptibility to infections, inflammation of the
lung tissue and some immunological changes.
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2). NO2, like O3, is not directly emitted into the atmosphere but is formed by an
atmospheric chemical reaction between nitric oxide (NO) and atmospheric oxygen. NO and NO2 are
collectively referred to as NOX and are major contributors to O3 formation. NO2 also contributes to the
formation of PM10. High concentrations of NO2 can cause breathing difficulties and result in a brownish-red
taha 2012-090 4.2-1

cast to the atmosphere with reduced visibility. There is some indication of a relationship between NO2 and
chronic pulmonary fibrosis. Some increase of bronchitis in children (two and three years old) has also been
observed at concentrations below 0.3 ppm.
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2). SO2 is a colorless, pungent gas formed primarily by the combustion of sulfur-
containing fossil fuels. Main sources of SO2 are coal and oil used in power plants and industries. Generally,
the highest levels of SO2 are found near large industrial complexes. In recent years, SO2 concentrations have
been reduced by the increasingly stringent controls placed on stationary source emissions of SO2 and limits
on the sulfur content of fuels. SO2 is an irritant gas that attacks the throat and lungs. It can cause acute
respiratory symptoms and diminished ventilator function in children. SO2 can also yellow plant leaves and
erode iron and steel. Sulfur oxide (SOX) refers to any of several compounds of sulfur and oxygen, the most
important of which is SO2.
Particulate Matter. Particulate matter pollution consists of very small liquid and solid particles floating in
the air, which can include smoke, soot, dust, salts, acids, and metals. Particulate matter also forms when
gases emitted from industries and motor vehicles undergo chemical reactions in the atmosphere. PM2.5 and
PM10 represent fractions of particulate matter. Fine particulate matter, or PM2.5, is roughly 1/28 the diameter
of a human hair. PM2.5 results from fuel combustion (e.g. motor vehicles, power generation, and industrial
facilities), residential fireplaces, and wood stoves. In addition, PM2.5 can be formed in the atmosphere from
gases such as SO2, NOX, and VOC. Inhalable particulate matter, or PM10, is about 1/7 the thickness of a
human hair. Major sources of PM10 include crushing or grinding operations; dust stirred up by vehicles
traveling on roads; wood burning stoves and fireplaces; dust from construction, landfills, and agriculture;
wildfires and brush/waste burning; industrial sources; windblown dust from open lands; and atmospheric
chemical and photochemical reactions.
PM2.5 and PM10 pose a greater health risk than larger-size particles. When inhaled, these tiny particles can
penetrate the human respiratory system’s natural defenses and damage the respiratory tract. PM2.5 and PM10
can increase the number and severity of asthma attacks, cause or aggravate bronchitis and other lung
diseases, and reduce the body’s ability to fight infections. Very small particles of substances, such as lead,
sulfates, and nitrates can cause lung damage directly. These substances can be absorbed into the blood
stream and cause damage elsewhere in the body. These substances can transport absorbed gases, such as
chlorides or ammonium, into the lungs and cause injury. Whereas PM10 tends to collect in the upper portion
of the respiratory system, PM2.5 is so tiny that it can penetrate deeper into the lungs and damage lung tissues.
Suspended particulates also damage and discolor surfaces on which they settle, as well as produce haze and
reduce regional visibility.
Lead (Pb). Pb in the atmosphere occurs as particulate matter. Sources of lead include leaded gasoline; the
manufacturers of batteries, paint, ink, ceramics, and ammunition; and secondary lead smelters. Prior to 1978,
mobile emissions were the primary source of atmospheric lead. Between 1978 and 1987, the phase-out of
leaded gasoline reduced the overall inventory of airborne lead by nearly 95 percent. With the phase-out of
leaded gasoline, secondary lead smelters, battery recycling, and manufacturing facilities have become lead-
emission sources of greater concern.
Prolonged exposure to atmospheric lead poses a serious threat to human health. Health effects associated
with exposure to lead include gastrointestinal disturbances, anemia, kidney disease, and in severe cases,
neuromuscular and neurological dysfunction. Of particular concern are low-level lead exposures during
infancy and childhood. Such exposures are associated with decrements in neurobehavioral performance,
including intelligence quotient performance, psychomotor performance, reaction time, and growth.
Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs). TACs are generally defined as those contaminants that are known or
suspected to cause serious health problems, but do not have a corresponding ambient air quality standard.
TACs are also defined as an air pollutant that may increase a person’s risk of developing cancer and/or other
serious health effects; however, the emission of a toxic chemical does not automatically create a health
taha 2012-090 4.2-2

hazard. Other factors, such as the amount of the chemical; its toxicity, and how it is released into the air, the
weather, and the terrain, all influence whether the emission could be hazardous to human health. TACs are
emitted by a variety of industrial processes such as petroleum refining, electric utility and chrome plating
operations, commercial operations such as gasoline stations and dry cleaners, and motor vehicle exhaust and
may exist as PM10 and PM2.5 or as vapors (gases). TACs include metals, other particles, gases absorbed by
particles, and certain vapors from fuels and other sources.
The emission of toxic substances into the air can be damaging to human health and to the environment.
Human exposure to these pollutants at sufficient concentrations and durations can result in cancer, poisoning,
and rapid onset of sickness, such as nausea or difficulty in breathing. Other less measurable effects include
immunological, neurological, reproductive, developmental, and respiratory problems. Pollutants deposited
onto soil or into lakes and streams affect ecological systems and eventually human health through
consumption of contaminated food. The carcinogenic potential of TACs is a particular public health concern
because many scientists currently believe that there is no "safe" level of exposure to carcinogens. Any
exposure to a carcinogen poses some risk of contracting cancer.
The public’s exposure to TACs is a significant public health issue in California. The Air Toxics “Hotspots”
Information and Assessment Act is a State law requiring facilities to report emissions of TACs to air
districts. The program is designated to quantify the amounts of potentially hazardous air pollutants released,
the location of the release, the concentrations to which the public is exposed, and the resulting health risks.
The State Air Toxics Program (AB 2588) identified over 200 TACs, including the 188 TACs identified in the
Federal Clean Air Act (CAA). The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has assessed
this expansive list of toxics and identified 21 TACs as Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs). MSATs are
compounds emitted from highway vehicles and non-road equipment. Some toxic compounds are present in
fuel and are emitted to the air when the fuel evaporates or passes through the engine unburned. Other toxics
are emitted from the incomplete combustion of fuels or as secondary combustion products. Metal air toxics
also result from engine wear or from impurities in oil or gasoline. USEPA also extracted a subset of these
21 MSAT compounds that it now labels as the six priority MSATs: benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde,
diesel particulate matter/diesel exhaust organic gases, acrolein, and 1,3-butadiene. While these six MSATs
are considered the priority transportation toxics, USEPA stresses that the lists are subject to change and may
be adjusted in future rules. 1
Federal
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). The CAA governs air quality in the United
States. USEPA is responsible for enforcing the CAA. USEPA regulates emission sources that are under the
exclusive authority of the federal government, such as aircraft, ships, and certain types of locomotives.
USEPA has jurisdiction over emission sources outside state waters (e.g., beyond the outer continental shelf)
and establishes various emission standards, including those for vehicles sold in states other than California.
Automobiles sold in California must meet stricter emission standards established by the California Air
Resources Board (CARB).
As required by the CAA, National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been established for seven
major air pollutants: CO, NO2, O3, PM2.5, PM10, SO2, and Pb. The CAA requires USEPA to designate areas
as attainment, nonattainment, or maintenance (previously nonattainment and currently attainment) for each
criteria pollutant based on whether the NAAQS have been achieved. The federal standards are summarized
1
Federal Highway Administration, Memorandum. Information: Interim Guidance on Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA
Documents, September 30, 2009.
taha 2012-090 4.2-3

in Table 4.2-1. The USEPA has classified the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) as a nonattainment area for O3,
PM2.5, and PM10.
TABLE 4.2-1: STATE AND NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS AND ATTAINMENT
STATUS FOR THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
California Federal
Pollutant Averaging Period Standards Attainment Status Standards Attainment Status
0.09 ppm
1-hour Nonattainment -- --
(180 µg/m3)
Ozone (O3)
0.070 ppm 0.075 ppm
8-hour n/a Nonattainment
(137 µg/m3) (147 µg/m3)
3
Respirable 24-hour 50 µg/m Nonattainment 150 µg/m3 Nonattainment
Particulate Annual 3
20 µg/m Nonattainment -- --
Matter (PM10) Arithmetic Mean
3
Fine 24-hour -- -- 35 µg/m Nonattainment
Particulate Annual
12 µg/m3 Nonattainment 12.0 µg/m3 Nonattainment
Matter (PM2.5) Arithmetic Mean
20 ppm 35 ppm
Carbon 1-hour Attainment Maintenance
(23 mg/m3) (40 mg/m3)
Monoxide
9.0 ppm 9 ppm
(CO) 8-hour Attainment Maintenance
(10 mg/m3) (10 mg/m3)
0.18 ppm 100 ppb
1-hour 3 Nonattainment Maintenance
Nitrogen (338 µg/m ) (190 µg/m3)
Dioxide (NO2) Annual 0.030 ppm 53 ppb
3 Nonattainment Maintenance
Arithmetic Mean (57 µg/m ) (100 µg/m3)
0.25 ppm 75 ppb (196
1-hour Attainment Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide (655 µg/m )
3
µg/m3)
(SO2) 0.04 ppm
24-hour Attainment -- --
(105 µg/m3)
30-day average 1.5 µg/m3 Nonattainment -- --
Lead (Pb)
Calendar Quarter -- -- 0.15 µg/m3 Attainment
SOURCE: CARB, Ambient Air Quality Standards, and Attainment Status, June 4, 2013.
State
California Air Resources Board (CARB). In addition to being subject to the requirements of CAA, air
quality in California is also governed by more stringent regulations under the California Clean Air Act
(CCAA). In California, the CCAA is administered by CARB at the State level and by the air quality
management districts and air pollution control districts at the regional and local levels. CARB is responsible
for meeting the State requirements of the CAA, administering the CCAA, and establishing the California
Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). CAAQS are generally more stringent than the corresponding
federal NAAQS standards and incorporate additional standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride,
and visibility-reducing particles. The State standards are summarized in Table 4.2-1.
The CCAA requires CARB to designate areas within California as either attainment or nonattainment for
each criteria pollutant based on whether the CAAQS have been achieved. Under the CCAA, areas are
designated as nonattainment for a pollutant if air quality data shows that a State standard for the pollutant
was violated at least once during the previous three calendar years. Exceedances that are affected by highly
irregular or infrequent events are not considered violations of a State standard and are not used as a basis for
designating areas as nonattainment. Under the CCAA, the Los Angeles County portion of the Basin is
designated as a nonattainment area for O3, PM2.5, PM10, NO2, and Pb.
taha 2012-090 4.2-4

Local
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The 1977 Lewis Air Quality Management
Act created the SCAQMD to coordinate air quality planning efforts throughout Southern California. This
Act merged four county air pollution control agencies into one regional district to better address the issue of
improving air quality in Southern California. Under the Act, renamed the Lewis-Presley Air Quality
Management Act in 1988, the SCAQMD is the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air
pollution control in the region. Specifically, the SCAQMD is responsible for monitoring air quality, as well
as planning, implementing, and enforcing programs designed to attain and maintain State and federal
ambient air quality standards in the district. Programs that were developed include air quality rules and
regulations that regulate stationary sources, area sources, point sources, and certain mobile source emissions.
The SCAQMD is also responsible for establishing stationary source permitting requirements and for ensuring
that new, modified, or relocated stationary sources do not create net emission increases.
Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). All areas designated as nonattainment under the CCAA are
required to prepare plans showing how the area would meet the State air quality standards by its attainment
dates. AQMP is the SCAQMD plan for improving regional air quality. It addresses CAA and CCAA
requirements and demonstrates attainment with State and federal ambient air quality standards. The AQMP
is prepared by SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The AQMP
provides policies and control measures that reduce emissions to attain both State and federal ambient air
quality standards by their applicable deadlines. Environmental review of individual projects within the Basin
must demonstrate that daily construction and operational emissions thresholds, as established by the
SCAQMD, would not be exceeded. The environmental review must also demonstrate that individual
projects would not increase the number or severity of existing air quality violations.
On December 7, 2012, the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted the 2012 AQMP to continue the progression
toward clean air and compliance with State and federal requirements. It includes a comprehensive strategy
aimed at controlling pollution from all sources, including stationary sources, on- and off-road mobile sources
and area sources. The 2012 AQMP proposes attainment demonstration of the federal 24-hour PM2.5 standard
by 2014 in the Basin through adoption of all feasible measures while incorporating current scientific
information and meteorological air quality models. It also updates the USEPA approved eight-hour O3
control plan with new commitments for short-term NOX and VOC reductions.
EXISTING SETTING
Air Pollution Climatology
The project site is located within the Los Angeles County portion of the Basin. The 6,745-square-mile Basin
includes all of Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino
counties. It is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west; the San Gabriel, San Bernardino and San Jacinto
Mountains to the north and east; and the San Diego County line to the south (Figure 4.2-1). Ambient
pollution concentrations recorded in Los Angeles County are among the highest in the four counties
comprising the Basin.
The Basin is in an area of high air pollution potential due to its climate and topography. The general region
lies in the semi-permanent high pressure zone of the eastern Pacific, resulting in a mild climate tempered by
cool sea breezes with light average wind speeds. The Basin experiences warm summers, mild winters,
infrequent rainfalls, light winds, and moderate humidity. This usually mild climatological pattern is
interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds. The Basin
is a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and
high mountains around the rest of its perimeter. The mountains and hills within the area contribute to the
variation of rainfall, temperature, and winds throughout the region.
taha 2012-090 4.2-5

San Francisco
SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
Gorman
Victorville
Palm Springs
Pt. Dume
Santa Monica
Long Beach
San Clemente
San Diego
LEGEND:
N
South Coast Air Basin Approx.
Scale
State of California
0 75 150
SOURCE: California Air Resources Board, State and Local Air Monitoring Network Plan, October 1998. MILES
taha 2012-090
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
The Basin experiences frequent temperature inversions. Temperature typically decreases with height.
However, under inversion conditions, temperature increases as altitude increases, thereby preventing air
close to the ground from mixing with the air above it. As a result, air pollutants are trapped near the ground.
During the summer, air quality problems are created due to the interaction between the ocean surface and the
lower layer of the atmosphere. This interaction creates a moist marine layer. An upper layer of warm air
mass forms over the cool marine layer, preventing air pollutants from dispersing upward. Additionally,
hydrocarbons and NO2 react under strong sunlight, creating smog.
Light, daytime winds, predominantly from the west, further aggravate the condition by driving air pollutants
inland, toward the mountains. During the fall and winter, air quality problems are created due to CO and NO2
emissions. CO concentrations are generally worse in the morning and late evening (around 10:00 p.m.). In the
morning, CO levels are relatively high due to cold temperatures and the large number of cars traveling. High CO
levels during the late evenings are a result of stagnant atmospheric conditions trapping CO in the area. Since CO
emissions are produced almost entirely from automobiles, the highest CO concentrations in the Basin are
associated with heavy traffic. NO2 concentrations are also generally higher during fall and winter days.
Local Climate
The mountains and hills within the Basin contribute to the variation of rainfall, temperature, and winds
throughout the region. Within the project site and its vicinity, the average wind speed, as recorded at the
Downtown Los Angeles Wind Monitoring Station, is approximately five miles per hour, with calm winds
occurring approximately eight percent of the time. Wind in the vicinity of the project site predominately
blows from the southwest.
The annual average temperature in the vicinity of the project is 65 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) with an average
winter temperature of approximately 58°F and an average summer temperature of approximately 72°F. 2
Total precipitation in the project area averages approximately 15 inches annually. Precipitation occurs
mostly during the winter and relatively infrequently during the summer. Precipitation averages
approximately nine inches during the winter, approximately four inches during the spring, approximately two
inches during the fall, and less than one inch during the summer. 3
Air Monitoring Data

The SCAQMD maintains a network of air quality monitoring stations located throughout the Basin and has
divided the Basin into air monitoring areas. The SCAQMD monitors air quality conditions at 38 locations
throughout the Basin. The project site is located in SCAQMD’s South Central Los Angeles County Air
Monitoring Subregion of the Metropolitan General Forecast Area, which is served by the Compton
Monitoring Station located on 700 North Bullis Road, and located approximately four miles north of the
project site (Figure 4.2-2). Historical data from the Compton Monitoring Station was used to characterize
existing conditions in the vicinity of the project. Criteria pollutants monitored at the Compton Monitoring
Station include O3, PM2.5, CO, and NO2. The Compton Monitoring Station does not monitor SO2, and PM10.
The most representative monitoring station that measures SO2 and PM10 concentrations is the Los Angeles
North Main Monitoring Station, located approximately nine miles north of the project site.
Table 4.2-2 shows pollutant levels, the State and federal standards, and the number of exceedances recorded at
the Compton and Los Angeles-North Main Street Monitoring Station from 2010 to 2012. Table 4.2-2
indicates, criteria pollutants CO, NO2, and SO2 did not exceed the State and federal standards. The eight-hour
State standard for O3 was exceeded one time. The 24-hour State standard for PM10 was exceeded five times but
the federal standard was not exceeded during this period. The 24-hour federal standard for PM2.5 was exceeded
two times. The annual State standard for PM2.5 was exceeded each year during this period.
2
Western Regional Climate Center, Historical Climate Information website, http://www.wrcc.dri.edu, accessed
November 27, 2013.
3
Ibid.
taha 2012-090 4.2-7

5
13 210
118
405 15
6
101
7 5
134 8
210
9
2
170
110
2 1 10
60
10
90 11
Project Site 12
105
5
91
405
710
4
3 110
Pacific
Ocean
LEGEND: Compton Monitoring Station

Air Monitoring Areas in Los Angeles County:
1. Central Los Angeles 9. East San Gabriel Valley
2. Northwest Coastal 10. Pomona/Walnut Valley (not shown)
3. Southwest Coastal 11. South San Gabriel Valley
4. South Coastal 12. South Central Los Angeles
5. Southeast Los Angeles County 13. Santa Clarita Valley
6. West San Fernando Valley 15. San Gabriel Mountains N
7. East San Fernando Valley Approx.
Scale
8. West San Gabriel Valley
0 4.5 9
SOURCE: South Coast Air Quality Management District Air Monitoring Areas Map, 1999. MILES
taha 2012-090
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report AIR QUALITY MONITORING AREAS
TABLE 4.2-2: AMBIENT AIR QUALITY DATA

Pollutant Pollutant Concentration & Standards 2010 2011 2012
Ozone (O3) Maximum 1-hr Concentration (ppm) 0.08 0.08 0.08
Days > 0.09 ppm (State 1-hr standard) 0 0 0
Maximum 8-hr Concentration (ppm) 0.06 0.07 0.07

Days > 0.075 ppm (National 8-hr standard) 0 0 0
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Maximum 1-hr Concentration (ppm) 6 n/a n/a
Days > 20 ppm (State1-hr standard) 0 n/a n/a
Days > 35 ppm (National 1-hr standard) 0 n/a n/a
Maximum 8-hr Concentration (ppm) 3.6 4.7 4.0

Days > 9 ppm (National 8-hr standard) 0 0 0
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Maximum 1-hr Concentration (ppm) 0.08 0.08 0.08
Days > 0.100 ppm (National 1-hr standard) 0 0 0
Respirable Particulate Maximum 24-hr Concentration (µg/m3) 42 53 80
3
Matter (PM10) Days > 50 µg/m (State 24-hr standard) 0 2 3
Days > 150 µg/m3 (Federal 24-hr standard) 0 0 0
Annual Concentration (µg/m3) n/a 29 29

3
Exceed State Annual Standard (20 µg/m ) n/a Yes Yes
3
Fine Particulate Matter Maximum 24-hr Concentration (µg/m ) 38 35 51
(PM2.5) Days > 35 µg/m3 (National 24-hr standard) 1 0 1
Annual Concentration (µg/m3) 15 15 13

Exceed State Annual Standard (12 µg/m3) Yes Yes Yes
Exceed Federal Annual Standard (12.0 µg/m3) No No No
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Maximum 24-hr Concentration (ppm) 0.002 n/a n/a
Days > 0.04 ppm (State 24-hr standard) 0 n/a n/a
Days > 0.14 ppm (National 24-hr standard) 0 n/a n/a
n/a = not available
SOURCE: CARB, Air Quality Data Statistics, Top 4 Summary, http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php, accessed November 27, 2013.
Sensitive Receptors
Some population groups are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of users or
activities involved. CARB has identified the following groups who are most likely to be affected by air
pollution: children less than 14 years of age, the elderly over 65 years of age, athletes and people with
cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases.
Sensitive receptors near the project site are shown in Figure 4.2-3 and include the following:
• Single- and multi-family residences located approximately 100 feet to the north
• Single-family residences located approximately 200 feet to the east
• Redeemer Lutheran Church and School located approximately 770 feet to the northeast
• Single-family residences located approximately 795 feet to the south
• South Gate Educational Center located approximately 910 feet to the southwest
• Liberty Boulevard Elementary School located approximately 1,170 feet to the northeast
The above sensitive receptors represent the nearest air quality sensitive land uses with the potential to be
impacted by the proposed project. Additional sensitive receptors are located further from the project site in
the surrounding community and would be less affected by air emissions than the above sensitive receptors.
taha 2012-090 4.2-9

U
UPRR
PR
R 5
R
IG
RIGHT H
T- POPLAR
O PL 4
F-
W
SA
AY
NT
-OF-W
A
FE
AV
PROJECT SITE
E
AY
MANCHESTER AVE
3
LO
NG
BE
AC
H
BL
VD
ALAME
SANTA
DA ST
FIR
EST 2
ON
EB
FE AV
LVD
E
6
1
LEGEND:
Project Site
# Sensitive Receptors
1. Single-Family Residences Located to the South
2. Single-Family Residences Located to the East
3. Single-Family Residences Located to the North
4. Liberty Boulevard Elementary School
5. Redeemer Lutheran Church N
6.
Approx.
South Gate Educational Center Scale
0 300 600
taha 2012-090
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report AIR QUALITY SENSITIVE
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
impact related to air quality if it would:
• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan;
• Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation;
• Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors);
• Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; and/or
• Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
Because of the SCAQMD's regulatory role in the Basin, the significance thresholds and analysis
methodologies in the SCAQMD's Air Quality Guidance Handbook are used in evaluative project impacts.
Construction. The proposed project would have a significant impact related to construction activity if:
• Daily regional and localized construction emissions were to exceed SCAQMD construction emissions
thresholds presented in Table 4.2-3;
• The proposed project would generate TAC emissions that generate a health risk that exceeds ten persons
in one million; and/or
• The proposed project would create an odor nuisance.
TABLE 4.2-3: SCAQMD DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS

Regional Emissions Localized Emissions
Criteria Pollutant (Pounds Per Day) (Pounds Per Day) /a/
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 75 --
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 100 87
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 535
Sulfur Oxides (SOX) 150 --
Fine Particulates (PM2.5) 55 6
Particulates (PM10) 150 11
/a/ Localized significance thresholds were developed for a four-acre project site and a 25-meter receptor distance.
SOURCE: SCAQMD, CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, 2013.
Operations. The proposed project would have a significant impact related to operational activity if:
• Daily operational emissions were to exceed SCAQMD operational emissions presented in Table 4.2-4;
• Project-related traffic causes CO concentrations at study intersections to violate the CAAQS for either the
one- or eight-hour period. The CAAQS for the one- and eight-hour periods are 20 and 9.0 ppm, respectively;
• The proposed project would generate significant emissions of TACs;
• The proposed project would create an odor nuisance; and/or
• The proposed project would not be consistent with the AQMP.
TABLE 4.2-4: SCAQMD DAILY OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS

Criteria Pollutant Pounds Per Day
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 55
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 55
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550
Sulfur Oxides (SOX) 150
Fine Particulates (PM2.5) 55
Particulates (PM10) 150
SOURCE: SCAQMD, CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, 2013.
taha 2012-090 4.2-11

IMPACTS
METHODOLOGY
Construction
Regional and localized construction emissions were analyzed for the proposed project. Construction
emissions were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). CalEEMod is a
Statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government
agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutants
emissions for a variety of land use projects. The emissions factors and calculation methodologies contained
in the CalEEMod program have been approved for use by SCAQMD. The model contains data that are
specific for the SCAQMD jurisdiction and Los Angeles County. Inputs include each land use type and size,
in terms of building area, number of dwelling units, etc., and the vehicle trip generation for each land use.
Construction details were incorporated in CalEEMod for the estimate of emissions generated from
construction activities. Construction is anticipated to begin in the fourth quarter of 2015 and be completed
by May of 2018. In order to provide a conservative analysis, it was assumed that all construction activities
would be completed within the minimum timeframe of the overall development period. This is of particular
importance as construction emissions are directly related to the duration and intensity of construction
activities (i.e., emissions increase as the amount of construction and intensity increase). The analysis
assumed that each construction phase would occur independently. The proposed project includes the
demolition of the 220,550-square-foot Building 4 and its connections to Building 3, and the construction of a
new 100,000-square-foot building. In addition, the proposed project includes an approximately 1,600-space
parking structure and 60-space surface parking lot. When information was not available, CalEEMod defaults
for construction activities were assumed. Regional emissions were compared to SCAQMD regional
thresholds to determine project impact significance.
Construction activity would generate on-site pollutant emissions associated with equipment exhaust and
fugitive dust. Localized impacts from on-site daily emissions associated with construction were evaluated
for sensitive receptor locations potentially impacted by the proposed project construction activities.
Emissions for localized construction air quality analysis for NO2, CO, PM2.5, and PM10 were compiled using
the Localized Significance Threshold (LST) methodology promulgated by the SCAQMD in Sample
Construction Scenarios for Projects Less than Five Acres in Size. Localized on-site emissions were
calculated using similar methodology to the regional emission calculations. LSTs were developed based
upon the size or total area of the emission source, the ambient air quality in each source receptor area, and
the distance to the sensitive receptor.
Operations
CalEEMod was also used to calculate regional operational emissions. Operational emissions of criteria
pollutants would come from area and mobile sources. Operational emissions of criteria pollutants would
come from area sources and mobile sources. Area sources include natural gas for space heating and water
heating, gasoline-powered landscaping and maintenance equipment, consumer products such as household
cleaners, and architectural coatings for routine maintenance. Mobile sources are vehicle trips that would be
made by future students, faculty, and staff. CalEEMod uses EMFAC2011 emission rates to calculate vehicle
emissions. EMFAC2011 is the latest emission inventory model for motor vehicles operating on roads in
California. This model reflects the CARB’s current understanding of how vehicles travel and how much
they pollute. The EMFAC2011 model can be used to show how California motor vehicle emissions have
changed over time and are projected to change in the future.
Localized CO emissions were calculated utilizing the USEPA’s CAL3QHC dispersion model and the
CARB’s EMFAC 2011 model. CAL3QHC is a model developed by the USEPA to predict CO and other
taha 2012-090 4.2-12

pollutant concentrations from motor vehicle emissions at roadway intersections. The model uses a traffic
algorithm for estimating vehicular queue lengths at signalized intersections.
CONSTRUCTION
Regional Emissions
Construction of the proposed project has the potential to create air quality impacts through the use of heavy-
duty construction equipment and through vehicle trips generated by construction workers traveling to and
from the project site. Fugitive dust emissions would primarily result from demolition and site preparation
(e.g., grading) activities. NOX emissions would primarily result from the use of construction equipment.
During the finishing phase, the application of architectural coatings (e.g., paints) and other building materials
would release VOC. The assessment of construction air quality impacts considers each of these potential
sources. Construction emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity,
the specific type of operation and, for dust, the prevailing weather conditions.
It is mandatory for all construction projects in the Basin to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 for Fugitive
Dust. Specific Rule 403 control requirements include, but are not limited to, applying water in sufficient
quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes, applying soil binders to uncovered areas,
reestablishing ground cover as quickly as possible, utilizing a wheel washing system to remove bulk material
from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the project site, and maintaining effective cover
over exposed areas. Compliance with Rule 403 would reduce PM2.5 and PM10 emissions associated with
construction activities by approximately 61 percent.
Table 4.2-5 presents daily maximum regional emissions associated with each construction phase.
Construction-related daily maximum regional emissions would exceed the SCAQMD threshold for VOC as a
result of architectural coating activity. Therefore, without mitigation, the proposed project would result in a
significant impact related to regional construction emissions.
Localized Emissions
Table 4.2-5 presents maximum localized emissions associated with each construction phase and threshold values
for each pollutant based on the SCAQMD LTSs. The footprint for development would be approximately five
acres. However, the total area to be disturbed would be approximately six areas. Based on the anticipated
equipment mix, approximately 4.5 acres would potentially be disturbed during the grading phase. Therefore, the
LST analysis was conservatively based on a four-acre project site. Construction-related daily maximum localized
construction emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, the proposed project would result
in a less-than-significant impact related to localized construction emissions.
Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions

The greatest potential for TAC emissions during construction would be diesel particulate emissions associated
with heavy equipment operations. The dose to which receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to
determine health risk (i.e., potential exposure to TAC emission levels that exceed applicable standards). Dose is a
function of the concentration of a substance or substances in the environment and the duration of exposure to the
substance. Dose is positively correlated with time, meaning that a longer exposure period would result in a higher
exposure level for the maximally exposed individual. Thus, the risks estimated for a maximally exposed
individual are higher if a fixed exposure occurs over a longer period of time. According to the Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), health risk assessments, which determine the exposure of
sensitive receptors to TAC emissions, should be based on a 70-year exposure period; however, such assessments
should be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with the proposed project. Thus, because the use
of diesel engine construction equipment on-site would be limited to approximately 32 months, exposure would
occur approximately four percent of the 70-year exposure period. Therefore, the proposed project would result in
less-than-significant impacts related to construction TACs.
taha 2012-090 4.2-13

TABLE 4.2-5: DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS

pounds per day
Construction Phase VOC NOX CO SOX PM2.5 /a/ PM10 /a/
DEMOLITION
On-Site Emissions 3 34 25 <1 2 4
Off-Site Emissions 1 9 8 <1 <1 1
Total Emissions 4 43 33 <1 2 5
SITE PREPARATION
Off-Site Emissions <1 <1 <1 0 <1 <1
GRADING
Off-Site Emissions <1 <1 1 0 <1 <1
BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTION
Off-Site Emissions 3 13 36 <1 1 5
PAVING
Off-Site Emissions <1 <1 1 0 <1 <1
ARCHITECTURAL COATING
On-Site Emissions 390 2 2 0 <1 <1
Off-Site Emissions <1 <1 3 <1 <1 1
Total Emissions 390 2 5 <1 <1 1
Maximum Regional Total 390 76 53 <1 5 7

Regional Significance Threshold 75 100 550 150 55 150
Exceed Threshold? Yes No No No No No
Maximum On-Site Total 390 76 48 <1 5 6

Localized Significance Threshold /b, c/ -- /c/ 87 535 -- /c/ 6 11
Exceed Threshold? -- /c/ No No -- /c/ No No
/a/ CalEEMod emissions for fugitive dust were adjusted to account for a 61 percent control efficiency associated with SCAQMD Rule 403.
/b/ The localized thresholds were based on a 4-acre site and a 25-meter (82-foot) receptor distance.
/c/ SCAQMD has not developed localized significance methodology for VOC or SOX.
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
The majority of localized impacts related to PM10 and PM2.5 emissions during grading activity would be
related to fugitive dust emissions. Fugitive dust is not toxic but high concentrations can irritate the eyes,
noise, and throat and lead to respiratory distress. However, localized particulate matter concentrations would
be typical for urban construction projects and do not represent a substantial health risk. In addition, the
majority of grading activity would occur during weekday daytime hours when most people are away from
their home and not heavily utilizing residential yards. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less-
than-significant impacts related to community health.
Odors
Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include equipment exhaust and asphalt
paving. Odors from this source would be localized and generally confined to the immediate area surrounding
the project site. The proposed project would utilize typical construction techniques, and the odors would be
typical of most construction sites and temporary in nature. Therefore, the proposed project would result in
less-than-significant impacts related to odors.
taha 2012-090 4.2-14

OPERATIONS
Regional Emissions
The proposed project consists of the construction of a new FEC building, parking structure, and parking lot.
The FEC would accommodate up to 9,000 students and would generate new vehicle trips to the study area.
The proposed project would generate 2,780 net new trips per weekday. Table 4.2-6 compares existing
conditions to existing plus project conditions and future without project conditions to future with project
conditions. Regional emissions would not exceed the regional thresholds established by the SCAQMD.
Therefore, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to regional emissions.
TABLE 4.2-6: REGIONAL OPERATIONS EMISSIONS - EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

pounds per day
VOC NOX CO SOX PM2.5 PM10
EXISTING WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS
Area Source 11 0 1 0 0 0
Energy Source 1 5 4 <1 <1 <1
Mobile Source 26 66 277 <1 9 30
EXISTING WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
Mobile Source 42 105 438 1 14 48
Total Emissions 53 111 444 1 14 48
Net Emissions 15 40 162 1 5 18
Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No
FUTURE NO PROJECT CONDITIONS
Mobile Source 10 24 105 <1 8 30
FUTURE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
Mobile Source 16 37 168 1 13 47
Total Emissions 27 43 174 1 13 47
Net Emissions 5 14 64 1 5 17
Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
Localized Emissions
Localized CO emissions may potentially occur off-site at congested intersection with high traffic volumes.
CO concentrations in future years are expected to be lower than existing conditions due to stringent State and
federal mandates for lowering vehicle emissions. Although traffic volumes would be higher in the future
both without and with the implementation of the proposed project, CO emissions from mobile sources are
expected to be much lower due to technological advances in vehicle emissions systems, as well as from
normal turnover in the vehicle fleet. Accordingly, increases in traffic volumes are expected to be offset by
increases in cleaner-running cars as a percentage of the entire vehicle fleet on the road. 4
The State one- and eight-hour CO standards may potentially be exceeded at congested intersections with high
traffic volumes. The SCAQMD recommends a CO hotspot evaluation of potential localized CO impacts
4
Consistent with CARB’s vehicle emissions inventory.
taha 2012-090 4.2-15

when volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios are increased by two percent at signalized intersections with a level of
service (LOS) – traffic performance at intersections or along roadway segments – of D or worse. The
SCAQMD also recommends a CO hotspot evaluation when a signalized intersection decreases in LOS by
one level beginning when LOS changes from C to D.
Based on the traffic analysis, three intersections were selected for the peak hours with the greatest delay
based on proximity to sensitive receptors, and degree of delay severity. The selected intersections are as
follows:
• Alameda Street/Firestone Boulevard - PM Peak Hour
• Santa Fe Avenue/Project Driveway-Ardmore Avenue - PM Peak Hour
• Santa Fe Avenue/Firestone Boulevard - AM Peak Hour
Table 4.2-7 presents localized CO concentrations at the selected intersections. One-hour CO concentrations
under existing plus proposed project conditions would range from approximately 6.4 to 6.9 ppm at worst-
case sidewalk receptors. Eight-hour CO concentrations under existing plus proposed project conditions
would range from approximately 5.0 to 5.3 ppm. Maximum one-hour CO concentrations under future plus
proposed project conditions would range from 3.0 to 3.2 ppm at worst-case sidewalk receptors at each
selected intersection; Eight-hour CO concentrations under future plus proposed project conditions would
range from approximately 2.1 to 2.5 ppm. The State one- and eight-hour standards of 20 and 9.0 ppm,
respectively, would not be exceeded at the analyzed intersections. Therefore, the proposed project would
result in a less-than-significant impact related to localized CO concentrations.
TABLE 4.2-7: LOCALIZED CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS

1-Hour (parts per million) 8-Hour (parts per million)
Existing Plus Future With Existing Plus Future With
Intersection Project Project Project Project
Alameda St./Firestone Blvd (PM) 6.9 3.2 5.3 2.5
Santa Fe Ave./Project Driveway-Ardmore Ave. (PM) 6.4 2.5 5.0 2.1
Santa Fe Ave/Firestone Blvd. (AM) 6.8 3.0 5.3 2.4
State Standard 20 9.0
/a/ Existing concentrations include one- and eight-hour ambient concentrations of 6 and 4.7 ppm, respectively. Future concentrations include year
2031 one- and eight-hour ambient concentrations of 2 and 1.7 ppm, respectively.
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions
The SCAQMD recommends that health risk assessments be conducted for substantial sources of diesel
particulates (e.g., truck stops and warehouse distribution facilities) and has provided guidance for analyzing
mobile source diesel emissions. 5 The CARB siting guidelines defined a warehouse as having more than
100 truck trips or 40 refrigerated truck trips per day, and recommend siting such facilities at least 1,000 feet
away from sensitive land uses. The primary source of potential TACs associated with proposed project long-
term operations is diesel particulates from delivery trucks (e.g., truck traffic on local streets and on-site truck
idling). While the closest sensitive land uses is located approximately 100 feet to the east of the proposed
project's site, potential localized TAC impacts from on-site sources of diesel particulate emissions would be
minimal since only a limited number of heavy-duty trucks (e.g., delivery trucks) would access the project site.
Furthermore, the trucks that do visit the site would not idle on the project site for extended periods of time.
Based on the limited activity of these TAC sources and the CARB siting guidelines, the proposed project would
not warrant the need for a health risk assessment associated with on-site activities. Therefore, the proposed
project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to on-site operational TAC emissions.
5
SCAQMD, Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Emissions,
December 2002.
taha 2012-090 4.2-16

Regarding individuals that occupy the project site, some population groups are considered more sensitive to
air pollution than others due to the types of users or activities involved. CARB has identified the following
groups who are most likely to be affected by air pollution: children less than 14 years of age, the elderly over
65 years of age, athletes and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. The proposed
project does not include recreational areas or a childcare facility. College-age students typically over 18
years of age would attend classes for a couple of hours per week and do not represent a particularly sensitive
group of receptors. Based on the above assessment, the proposed project would not expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less-than-
significant impact related to operational TAC emissions.
Odors
According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses and industrial operations that are
associated with odor complaints include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing
plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies and fiberglass molding. The project site
would be developed with retail/commercial and residences and not land uses that are typically associated
with odor complaints. On-site trash receptacles would have the potential to create adverse odors. Trash
receptacles would be located and maintained in a manner that promotes odor control and no adverse odor
impacts are anticipated from these types of land uses. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less-
than-significant impact related to operational odors.
Consistency with the Air Quality Management Plan

The SCAQMD regional significance thresholds were designed to assist the SCAQMD in determining if a
project would worsen air quality conditions in the Basin. The proposed project would not result in
significant emissions during construction or operational activity. Construction and operational activity
would not conflict or obstruct implementation of the AQMP and would result in a less-than-significant
impact.
MITIGATION MEASURES
CONSTRUCTION
AQ1 The construction contractor shall utilize super-compliant architectural coatings as defined by the
SCAQMD (VOC standard of less than ten grams per liter).
AQ2 Construction contractors shall utilize materials that do not require painting, as feasible.
AQ3 Construction contractors shall use pre-painted construction materials, as feasible.
OPERATIONS
Operational impacts related to air quality emissions and applicable plans, policies, and regulations would be
less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
CONSTRUCTION
The construction analysis identified an unmitigated regional impact related to architectural coatings.
Mitigation Measures AQ1 through AQ3 would reduce project-related architectural coating emissions by
taha 2012-090 4.2-17

96 percent. 6 VOC emissions would be reduced to approximately 16 pounds per day, which would be less
than the SCAQMD regional significance threshold of 75 pounds per day. Therefore, with mitigation, the
proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to regional VOC construction
emissions.
OPERATIONS
Operational impacts related to air quality emissions and applicable plans, policies, and regulations were
determined to be less than significant without mitigation.
6
SCAQMD, Super-Compliant Architectural Coatings Manufacturers and Industrial Maintenance Coatings List,
http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/Coatings/super-compliantlist.htm.
taha 2012-090 4.2-18

2013 Firestone Education Center Master Plan 4.3 Cultural Resources
4.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES

This section provides an overview of cultural resources and evaluates the construction and operational
impacts associated with the proposed project. Topics addressed include historical, archaeological, and
paleontological resources, and human remains. This section was prepared utilizing two cultural reports
prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants, the Cultural Resources Assessment for the East Los Angeles
College Satellite Campus Master Plan dated May 2011 and the Cultural Resources Technical Report East
Los Angeles College Satellite Campus Project dated September 2009. Both of these studies are included in
Appendix C.
Several levels of government maintain jurisdiction over historic resources. The framework for the
identification and, in certain instances, protection of historic resources is established at the federal level,
while the identification, documentation, and protection of such resources are often undertaken by state and
local governments. The principal federal, State, and local laws governing and influencing the preservation of
historic resources of national, State, and local significance include the National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA) of 1966, as amended; the CEQA; the California Register of Historical Resources (California
Register); and California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5024.
Federal
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Section 106 of the NHPA of 1966, as amended, established a
national policy of historic preservation. The NHPA established the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (ACHP) and provided procedures for the agency to follow if a proposed action affects a
property that is included, or that may be eligible for inclusion, on the National Register of Historic Places
(National Register). The National Register was developed as a direct result of the NHPA. Section 106
requires that the head of any federal agency having direct or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed federal or
federally-assisted undertaking in any State, and the head of any federal department or independent agency
having authority to license any undertaking, shall, prior to the approval of the expenditure of any federal
funds on the undertaking or prior to the issuance of any license, take into account the effect of the
undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in
the National Register.
National Register of Historic Places (National Register). The National Register recognizes properties that
are significant at the national, State, and/or local levels. Although administered by the National Park Service
(NPS), the federal regulations explicitly provide that National Register listing of private property “does not
prohibit under federal law or regulation any actions which may otherwise be taken by the property owner
with respect to the property.” Listing in the National Register assists in preservation of historic properties
through the recognition that a property is of significance to the nation, the state, or the community;
consideration in the planning for federal or federally-assisted projects; eligibility for federal tax benefits; and
qualification for federal assistance for historic preservation, when funds are available. State and local
regulations may apply to properties listed in the National Register.
The following National Register criteria are the standards for determining if properties, sites, districts,
structures, or landscapes of potential significance are eligible for nomination:
• Criteria A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our
history.
• Criteria B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.
taha 2012-090 4.3-1

• Criteria C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that
represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and
distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.
• Criteria D. Yield, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
In addition to criteria listed above, the National Register recognizes seven aspects or qualities that comprise
historic integrity. Historic integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance and is defined as “the
authenticity of a property’s historic identity, evidenced by the survival of physical characteristics that existed
during the property’s historic period.” The seven aspects or qualities that comprise historic integrity are:
• Location. The place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event
occurred.
• Design. The combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property.
• Setting. The physical environment of a historic property.
• Materials. The physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and
in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.
• Workmanship. The physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given
period in history or prehistory.
• Feeling. A property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time.
• Association. The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.
Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA). ARPA applies when a project may involve
archaeological resources located on federal or tribal land. ARPA requires that a permit be obtained before
excavation of an archaeological resource on such land can take place.
State
Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). OHP, an office of the California Department of Parks and
Recreation, implements the policies of the NHPA on a Statewide level. The OHP also carries out the duties
set forth in the PRC and maintains the California Historic Resources Inventory, a database that includes
resources considered for listing in the National and California Registers or as California State Landmarks or
Points of Historical Interest. The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) is the appointed official who
implements historic preservation programs within the state’s jurisdiction.
California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). California Register is “an authoritative
listing and guide to be used by State and local agencies, private groups, and citizens in identifying the
existing historical resources of the State and to indicate which resources deserve to be protected, to the extent
prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change.” 1 The criteria for eligibility for the California
Register are based upon National Register criteria. These criteria are:
• Criterion 1: Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California of the United States;
• Criterion 2: Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history;
• Criterion 3: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction
or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; and
• Criterion 4: Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history
of the local area, California or the nation.
1
California Public Resources Code Section 50241(e).
taha 2012-090 4.3-2

The California Register consists of resources that are listed automatically and those that must be nominated
through an application and public hearing process. The California Register automatically includes the
following:
• California properties listed in the National Register (Category 1 in the State Inventory of Historical
Resources) and those formally Determined Eligible for listing in the National Register (Category 2 in the
State Inventory);
• California Registered Historical Landmarks from No. 0770 onward; and
• Those California Points of Historical Interest that have been evaluated by the OHP and have been
recommended to the State Historical Resources Commission for inclusion in the California Register.
In addition to the resources listed above, the following resources may also be nominated for listing in the
California Register:
• Historical resources with a significance rating of Categories 3 through 5 in the State Inventory.
(Categories 3 and 4 refer to potential eligibility for the National Register, while Category 5 indicates a
property with local significance)
• Individual historical resources
• Historical resources contributing to historic districts
• Historical resources designated or listed as a local landmark
Additionally, a historic resource eligible for listing in the California Register must meet one or more of the
criteria of significance described above and retain enough of its historic character or appearance to be
recognizable as a historic resource and to convey the reasons for its significance. Historical resources that
have been rehabilitated or restored may be evaluated for listing.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Under CEQA a “project that may cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a historic resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the
environment.” 2 This statutory standard involves a two-part inquiry: (1) A determination of whether the
project involves a historic resource and (2) a determination whether the project may involve a “substantial
adverse change in the significance” of the resource. To address these issues, guidelines that implement the
1992 statutory amendments relating to historical resources were adopted in final form on October 26, 1998,
with the addition of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The State CEQA Guidelines provide that for
the purposes of CEQA compliance the term “historical resources” shall include the following: 3
• A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for
listing in the California Register;
• A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the
Public Resources Code (PRC), or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the
requirements in Section 5024.1(g) of the PRC, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally
significant. Public agencies must treat such resources as significant for purposes of CEQA unless the
preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant;
• Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to
be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic,
agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to
be a historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in
light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be ‘historically
significant’ if the resource meets one of the criteria for listing on the California Register; and
2
California Public Resources Code Section 21084.1.
3
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15064.f(e).
taha 2012-090 4.3-3

• The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register,
not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the PRC, or
identified in a historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in Section 5024.1(g) of the PRC does not
preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be a historical resource as defined in
Section 5020.1(j) or 5024.1 of the PRC.
Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines provides that “[s]ubstantial adverse change in the significance of
an historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its
immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired.” 4
Material impairment occurs when a project alters or demolishes a historical resource in an adverse manner
"those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify
its inclusion" in a state or local historic registry. 5
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5
requires that, in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a
dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area
reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the human remains
are discovered has determined that the remains are not subject to the provisions of Section 27491 of the
Government Code or any other related provisions of law concerning investigation of the circumstances,
manner and cause of any death. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her
authority and if the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American, or has reason to
believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the
Native American Heritage Commission.
California Public Resources Code (PRC). PRC Section 5097.5 defines the unauthorized disturbance or
removal of archaeological, historical, or paleontological resources located on public lands as a misdemeanor.
This section also prohibits the knowing destruction of objects of antiquity without a permit (expressed
permission) on public lands, and provides for criminal sanctions. In 1987, PRC Section 5097.5 was amended
to require consultation with the California Native American Heritage Commission whenever Native
American graves are found. The section also established that violations for taking or possessing remains or
artifacts are felonies.
PRC Section 5097.9 establishes the California Native American Heritage Commission to make
recommendations to encourage private property owners to protect and preserve sacred places in a natural
state and to allow appropriate access to Native Americans for ceremonial or spiritual activities. The
California Native American Heritage Commission is authorized to assist Native Americans in obtaining
appropriate access to sacred places on public lands, and to aid State agencies in any negotiations with federal
agencies for the protection of Native American sacred places on federally administered lands in the State.
PRC Sections 5097.98-99 require that the California Native American Heritage Commission be consulted
whenever Native American graves are found. According to these PRC Sections, it is illegal to take or
possess remains or artifacts taken from Native American graves; however, it does not apply to materials
taken before 1984. Violations occurring after January 1, 1988 are felonies.
Local
Element provides land use policy guidance for protecting cultural resources in the City of South Gate. The
project site is identified in the Community Design Element as being located within Subarea 1 of the SGCD.
While California Government Code Section 53094 includes provisions for school districts to exempt
classroom facilities from local zoning regulations, applicable objectives and policies of the City’s General
Plan related to cultural resources are identified in Table 4.3-1.
4
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15064.5(b)(1).
5
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15064.5(b)(2)(A-C).
taha 2012-090 4.3-4


CULTURAL RESOURCES
Objective CD 9.1 Identify and preserve cultural and historic resources.
Policy P.1 Historic or culturally significant buildings and other resources in South Gate should be
preserved and enhanced to contribute to the character of the community.
Policy P.3 Through its direct or indirect actions, the City will cause no substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical or archaeological resource as defined in the CEQA.
Policy P.4 Unique paleontological resources and sites will not be directly or indirectly destroyed or
significantly altered.
Policy P.5 All new development should not disturb archeological sites.
SGCD Policy P.9 To the extent feasible, the existing Firestone Tire factory building should be adaptively
reused and the building façade preserved.
Note: SGCD - South Gate College District
City of South Gate Preservation of Cultural Heritage Ordinance. The Preservation of Cultural Heritage
Ordinance was passed on July 13, 2010, and its language is contained in the SGMC Section 7.68. The
ordinance is intended to:
Protect, enhance and perpetuate areas, streets, places, buildings, structures, outdoor works
of art, natural features and other similar objects which are reminders of past eras, events,
and persons important in local, state or national history, or which provide significant
examples of architectural styles of the past or are landmarks in the history of architecture,
or which are unique and irreplaceable assets to the city of South Gate and its
neighborhoods, or which provide for this and future generations significant examples of the
physical surroundings in which past generations lived.
The South Gate City Council has the authority to designate a locally significant cultural landmark upon
submission of an application from an interested party. Three City properties have been designated as
landmarks since the ordinance was adopted: the tile mosaic at the west entrance of the Civic Center
Community Building, 8680 California Avenue; the South Gate Community Center (former library),
8680 California Avenue; and the Glenn T. Seaborg Residence, at 9237 San Antonio Avenue. The tile mosaic
and the South Gate Community Center are located approximately 1.3 miles east, and the Seaborg Residence
is located approximately 1.6 miles east of the proposed project site. 6
EXISTING SETTING
Historical Resources
Site History. The project site is the former location of the Firestone Tire and Rubber Plant. The tire
manufacturer purchased the property in the late 1920s and began operation in December 1928. After the
arrival of Firestone and B.F. Goodrich, Los Angeles became the second most prolific rubber manufacturing
center in the nation, after Akron, Ohio. Automobile and aircraft manufacturing arrived shortly thereafter,
followed by other related plants. By the outset of World War II, more than 900 factories existed in a two-
mile region surrounding the City. The Firestone Company remained under family control until the 1970s.
Up to that time, it had been one of the largest employers in the City. The industry giant relinquished its
6
SWCA, Cultural Resources Assessment for the East Los Angeles Satellite Campus Master Plan, City of South Gate, Los
Angeles County, California, May 2011.
taha 2012-090 4.3-5

dominance, in part by failing to “respond effectively to new technology” including the radial tire. That
weakness was exaggerated by not identifying or meeting the threat of aggressive, global competition. The
Firestone Company, which had once been the leader in tire and rubber innovation, became an industry
dinosaur. The company was acquired by Japanese titan, Bridgestone, in 1980, and the South Gate factory,
once the largest employer in local commerce, closed.
Historic Buildings and Districts. According to the Cultural Resources Technical Report prepared for the
project site, the project site is part of the California Register-eligible South Gate Historic District and
Buildings 1, 2, and 3 on the project site are individually eligible for listing in the California Register.
Building 4 was identified as being a contributor to the South Gate Historic District but not individually
eligible for the California Register. The pedestrian bridge that connects Buildings 1 and 2, and a concrete
wall/wrought iron fence with gate posts also contribute to the California Register-eligible South Gate
Historic District. As these buildings are eligible for listing in the California Register, under CEQA, these
buildings are considered historic resources.
The South Gate Historic District encompasses two large parcels; the project site and the adjacent HON site.
Buildings 1, 2, and 3 located on the project site, built in 1928, were designed in an Italianate Mediterranean
Revival style. Character defining features include the tan stucco cladding, curved red terra cotta roof tiles,
arched and rectangular multi-light metal sash windows, simple stringcourse detailing, pyramidal-roofed
portals and towers, sculpted medallions that depict production and transportation, corbels with sculpted
faces, copper ornamented sconces, and a prominently featured clock that breaks the roofline of the tower and
a sculpted copper capped steeple atop the tower at Building 2. In 1929, Buildings 1 and 3 were expanded,
symmetrically adding six bays each on either side. Building 4, built in 1951, is a two-story utilitarian
building with an irregular plan, and although it is not designed in the Italianate Mediterranean Revival style,
it retains the same color and exterior cladding as the other buildings original to the complex. Figure 4.3-1
illustrates the location of buildings and structures, including buildings on the HON site. Photographs of the
buildings and structures are illustrated in Figures 4.3-2 and 4.3-3.
The South Gate Historic District is eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 1 because of
its association with events that made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history
and cultural heritage. The South Gate Historic District’s eligibility is based on its association with the
Firestone Company, including direct associations with the Harvey S. Firestone family, development of the
tire and rubber industries in California, the automobile revolution and subsequent culture, and the early
twentieth century industrial boom of Los Angeles. The South Gate Historic District is also eligible under
Criterion 3, as it embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type (industrial and manufacturing), period
(1928 to 1954) and region (southern California). The South Gate Historic District’s eligibility is based on
the expression of the Italianate Mediterranean Revival style, and as the work of a prominent Los Angeles-
based architecture firm, Curlett and Beelman. The Mediterranean Revival architectural style of the Firestone
Tire and Rubber Plant in South Gate is a direct connection with then-developing California regionalism.
Character defining features of the South Gate Historic District include terra cotta roof tiles, arched and
rectangular multi-light metal sash windows, stringcourse detailing, pyramidal-roofed portals and towers, bas-
relief medallions that depict production and transportation, corbels with sculpted faces, copper ornamental
sconces, the prominently-featured clock that breaks the roofline of the tower and a sculpted copper capped
steeple atop the tower of Building 2. For the same reasons described for the South Gate Historic District and
because Buildings 1, 2, and 3 have retained adequate integrity to their original appearance, these buildings
are individually eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 1 and 3, and as a contributing
resource to the South Gate Historic District. Despite limited alterations, because Building 4 retains adequate
integrity to its original appearance, Building 4 is eligible for listing in the California Register under
Criterion 1 as a contributing resource to the South Gate Historic District.
taha 2012-090 4.3-6

LO
N
G
BE
AC
H
BL
POPLAR
PL
VD
UP
RR
Rig
ht-
MANCHESTER AVE of-
Wa
y INDEP
ENDEN
CE AVE
UPRR
Right-
of-Wa
ARDMO
RE AVE
y
BUILDING
4 GUARD STATION
BUILDING
ALAM
ORCHA
RD PL
3
EDA S
SANTA
BUILDING
T
FE AV
E
BUILDING LAUREL
PL
FIR
EST
ON
2
CONCRETE WALL/ EB
LVD
WROUGHT IRON FENCE
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
JUNIPER ST
FIRES
BEAUD
CALD
TONE
TOPE
EN AV
INE AV
PLAZ
AVE
E
LEGEND:
Project Site
California Register-Eligible South Gate Historic District
N
South Gate Historic District Contributors Approx.
Scale
California Register-Eligible Buildings
0 150 300
taha 2012-090
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES
Building 1 contributes to the South Gate Historic District’s Building 2 contributes to the South Gate Historic District’s
eligibility and is individually eligible to the California Register. eligibility and is individually eligible to the California Register.
Building 3 contributes to the South Gate Historic District’s Building 4 contributes to the South Gate Historic District’s
eligibility and is individually eligible to the California Register. eligibility, but is not individually eligible to the California Register.
SOURCE: SWCA and TAHA, 2013.
taha 2012-090
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report HISTORIC BUILDINGS
The pedestrian bridge contributes to the South Gate Historic The concrete wall/wrought iron fence contributes to the South
District’s eligibility, but is not individually eligible to the Gate Historic District’s eligibility, but is not individually eligible
California Register. to the California Register.
Guard Station
The guard station contributes to the South Gate Historic

District’s eligibility, but is not individually eligible to the
California Register.
SOURCE: SWCA and TAHA, 2013.
taha 2012-090
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report HISTORIC STRUCTURES
Archaeological Resources
The project site and the surrounding area are fully urbanized. Buildings and paved areas cover the entire
project area. A cultural resources record check conducted for the project site concluded that there are no
archaeological sites located within the project area. The records, literature search, and surveys revealed a
low sensitivity for historic-period and prehistoric archaeological resources in the project area. 7
Paleontological Resources
The project site is located in a fully urbanized area of the City of South Gate. The project area is underlain
by younger Quaternary alluvial deposits of Holocene age. Surficial deposits of younger Quaternary alluvium
generally consist of unconsolidated gravel, sand, silt, and clay deposited in modern stream channels and
fluvial slope wash. Specific to the study area, these fluvial deposits are in part derived from the nearby Los
Angeles River. These young sediments overlie “older alluvium” of Pleistocene age at unknown but
potentially shallow depths. Older alluvial sediments may be slightly-to-moderately consolidated but are
generally only distinguishable through relative dating and stratigraphic position. 8
Museum collections maintained by the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County contain no recorded
vertebrate fossil localities within the boundaries of the project site. However, at least eight scientifically
significant fossil localities have been documented within Quaternary older alluvium deposits in the vicinity
of the project site. 9 These localities yielded significant vertebrate remains of medium to large terrestrial
mammals including specimens. The depths at which these fossil specimens were discovered were for the
most part unreported. However, four fossils were reportedly recovered from excavations as shallow as
15 feet below the ground surface.
Quaternary older alluvium is considered to have a high paleontological sensitivity due to its proven potential
to contain significant vertebrate fossils. No fossil localities were discovered within the younger Quaternary
alluvium either within or in the vicinity of the project area, and Holocene-age deposits generally contain only
the remains of modern organisms. Therefore, the surficial geologic sediments within the project area are
considered to have a low paleontological sensitivity. However, the sensitivity of younger alluvium increases
with depth, as it overlies highly sensitive older alluvium.
Human Remains
Prior to the immigration of Spanish settlers, the Tongva Native Americans inhabited the land that is now the
City of South Gate. The Tongva established large, permanent villages in the fertile lowlands along rivers and
streams and in sheltered areas along the coast, stretching from the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains to
the Pacific Ocean. A total tribal population has been estimated at 5,000 persons, but recent ethnohistoric
work suggests that 10,000 persons seem more likely. 10
The Native American Heritage Commission was consulted as a means of determining the presence of Native
American resources on the project site. A record search of the sacred lands file was conducted by the
Commission, and it did not indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate
project area. 11
7
SWCA, Cultural Resources Technical Report East Los Angeles College Satellite Campus Project, City of South Gate, Los
Angeles County, California, September 2009.
8
Ibid.
9
Ibid.
10
Ibid.
11
Ibid.
taha 2012-090 4.3-10

impact related to cultural resources if it would:
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in
Section 15064.5;
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5;
• Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resources or site or unique geologic feature;
and/or
• Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
IMPACTS
CONSTRUCTION
The proposed project involves the demolition of Building 4 and its connections to Building 3, and the
construction of a new 100,000-gross-square-foot building and an approximately 1,600-space parking
structure on the northern portion of the project site. As described above, the project site is part of the
California Register-eligible Historic District, Buildings 1, 2, and 3 on the project site are individually eligible
for listing in the California Register, and Building 4, the pedestrian bridge connecting Buildings 2 and 3, and
a concrete wall/wrought iron fence with gate posts contribute to the California Register-eligible District.
Accordingly, under CEQA, these buildings are all considered historical resources. The demolition of
Building 4 and its connections to Building 3, which would result in exterior alterations to Building 3, would
result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of these historic resources, as well as the South Gate
Historic District. Therefore, without mitigation, the proposed project would result in a significant impact
related to historical resources.
The project site is a previously disturbed area where grading and excavation have already occurred. No
prehistoric or historic archaeological resources are apparent at the ground surface. The records search
concluded that there are no archaeological sites located on project site, and there is a low likelihood that
archaeological resources would be encountered during ground-disturbing activities, such as grading,
grubbing, and vegetation clearing. However, there is a possibility of encountering such resources.
Therefore, without mitigation, the proposed project would result in a significant impact related to
archaeological resources.
The project site is a previously disturbed area where grading and excavation have already occurred. No
paleontological resources are apparent at the ground surface. Superficial and/or very shallow excavations
related to the construction of proposed project are unlikely to result in a significant impact to paleontological
resources. However, the proposed parking structure which would include one partial level below grade
would require deeper excavations. As described above, fossils recovered from excavations as shallow as
15 feet below ground surface have been documented in the vicinity of the project site. Accordingly,
excavations ten feet deep or greater at the project site have the potential to encounter and possibly destroy
taha 2012-090 4.3-11

fossils, making biological records of ancient life permanently unavailable for study. Therefore, without
mitigation, the proposed project would result in a significant impact related to paleontological resources.
Human Remains
According to the Native American Heritage Commission, no Native American cultural resources are present
in the immediate project area. In addition, the project site is not part of a formal cemetery and, therefore, it is
unlikely that human remains exist on or in the vicinity. Although the absence of site-specific information
does not preclude the existence of buried cultural resources in the project area, the project site is an area that
is fully developed and previously graded, making it unlikely that human remains would be encountered
during ground-disturbing activities. Nonetheless, there is a possibility of encountering such resources during
ground-disturbing activities. Therefore, without mitigation, the proposed project would result in a significant
impact related to human remains.
OPERATIONS
No impact related to cultural resources would occur. Therefore, no further discussion of operational impacts
is necessary.
MITIGATION MEASURES
CONSTRUCTION
CR1 Impacts resulting from the demolition of Building 4 and alteration of Building 3 shall be minimized
through archival documentation of as-built and as-found condition. Prior to issuance of demolition
permits, the Los Angeles Community College District shall ensure that documentation of the
buildings and structures proposed for demolition is completed in the form of a Historic American
Building Survey Level I documentation that shall comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for Architectural and Engineering Documentation (National Park Service 1990). The
documentation shall include large-format photographic recordation, detailed historic narrative report,
and compilation of historic research. The documentation shall be completed by a qualified
architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualification Standards for History and/or Architectural History (National Park Service 1983). The
original archival-quality documentation shall be offered as donated material to the new campus
library where it would be available for current and future generations. Archival copies of the
documentation also would be submitted to the South Gate’s Leland R. Weaver Public Library where
it would be available to local researchers. Completion of this mitigation measure shall be monitored
and enforced by the Los Angeles Community College District.
CR2 Impacts related to the loss of Building 4 and its connections to Building 3 shall be reduced through
the development of a retrospective display detailing the history of the historic district, its
significance, and its important details and features. This display can be in the form of a physical
exhibit, kiosk, a web page, or some combination of these media types. The display shall include
images and details from the Historic American Building Survey documentation and any collected
research pertaining to the historic district. The display content shall be prepared by a qualified
architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualification Standards for History and/or Architectural History (National Park Service 1983). The
display shall be completed within two years of the date of completion of the proposed project.
Completion of this mitigation measure shall be monitored and enforced by the Los Angeles
Community College District.
taha 2012-090 4.3-12

CR3 If evidence of archaeological resources (artifacts or features) are discovered during construction
related earth-moving activities, all ground-disturbing activities (e.g., grading, grubbing, vegetation
clearing) within 100 feet of the resource shall be halted and Los Angeles Community College
District shall be notified. Los Angeles Community College District shall hire an archaeologist who
meets the Secretary of the Interior’s professional qualification standards shall be retained to assess
the significance of the resource. Impacts to any significant resources shall be mitigated to a less-
than-significant level through data recovery or other methods determined adequate by the
archaeologist and Los Angeles Community College District and shall be consistent with the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Archaeological Documentation. Any identified
archaeological resources shall be recorded on the appropriate Department of Park and Recreation
523 (A-L) form and filed with the appropriate Information Center.
CR4 All project-related ground disturbances that could potentially impact paleontologically sensitive
Quaternary older alluvium shall be monitored by a qualified paleontological monitor on a full-time
basis, as this geologic unit is considered to have a high paleontological sensitivity. Since Quaternary
older alluvium is estimated to occur at depths of ten feet and greater, all excavations deeper than ten
feet will be monitored full-time. Additionally, any excavations that occur in surficial younger
(Holocene age) Quaternary alluvial and fluvial deposits and/or topsoil (estimated to occur at less
than ten feet in depth) shall be spot-checked on a part-time basis at the discretion of the Qualified
Paleontologist to ensure that underlying paleontologically sensitive sediments are not being
impacted.
CR5 A Qualified Paleontologist shall be retained to supervise monitoring of construction excavations

beyond ten feet in depth and inspect exposed rock units during active excavations within sensitive
geologic sediments. The paleontologist shall implement a paleontological monitoring and mitigation
plan for the proposed project to reduce impacts to paleontological resources to a less-than-significant
level in the event that such resources are encountered. The qualified paleontologist shall have
authority to temporarily divert grading away from exposed fossils in order to professionally and
efficiently recover the fossil specimens and collect associated data. In the event that fossils are
encountered, at each fossil locality, field data forms shall be used to record pertinent geologic data,
stratigraphic sections will be measured, and appropriate sediment samples will be collected and
submitted for analysis.
Human Remains
CR6 If human remains are discovered during any demolition/construction activities, all ground-disturbing
activity within a 100 foot radius of the remains shall be halted immediately, and the Los Angeles
County Coroner shall be notified immediately, according to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98
and California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. If the human remains are determined to be
Native American, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, and the
guidelines of the Native American Heritage Commission shall be adhered to in the treatment and
disposition of the remains. The Native American Heritage Commission will consult with the Most
Likely Descendant (MLD), if any. The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site within
48 hours of notification and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of
human remains and items associated with Native American burials. The Los Angeles Community
College District shall be responsible for the approval and implementation of the MLD
recommendations as deemed appropriate, prior to resumption of ground-disturbing activities within
100 foot radius of where the remains were discovered.
taha 2012-090 4.3-13

OPERATIONS
No impacts related to cultural resources would occur. No mitigation measures are required.

CONSTRUCTION
Implementation of Mitigation Measures CR1 and CR2 would reduce significant impacts related to historical
resources (Building 4 and the South Gate Historic District) to the maximum extent feasible. However, these
impacts would remain significant because the proposed project would not preserve, rehabilitate, restore, or
reconstruct the historic building. As defined by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties (14 CCR Section 15126.4[b][1]), a significant impact to an identified historical resource
would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level if the mitigation measure requires preservation,
rehabilitation, restoring, or reconstructing historic buildings. Therefore, the proposed project would result in
a significant-and-unavoidable impact related to historical resources.
Impacts related to archaeological resources were determined to be significant without mitigation. Mitigation
Measure CR3 would reduce these impacts to less than significant.
Impacts related to paleontological resources were determined to be significant without mitigation.

Mitigation Measures CR4 and CR5 would reduce these impacts to less than significant.
Human Remains
Impacts related to human remains were determined to be significant without mitigation. Mitigation Measure
CR6 would reduce these impacts to less than significant.
OPERATIONS
No impacts related to cultural resources would occur.
taha 2012-090 4.3-14

2013 Firestone Education Center Master Plan 4.4 Geology & Soils
4.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

This section provides an overview of geologic and soil conditions at the project site and surrounding area and
evaluates the potential for construction and operation of the proposed project to result in impacts related to
geology and soil. Topics addressed in this section include seismic hazards, soil stability and soil erosion.
This section was prepared utilizing documents and maps published by the United States Geological Survey
(USGS), California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey (CGS), the City of South
Gate and the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report prepared for the project site by Anderson
Environmental in Appendix D.
Federal
Uniform Building Code (UBC). UBC, published by the International Conference of Building Officials,
forms the basis for the California Building Code (CBC) and the majority of state building codes in the United
States. The UBC has been adopted by California Legislature to address specific building conditions and
structural requirements for the State, as well as provide guidance on foundation design and structural
engineering for different soil types. The UBC defines and ranks the regions of the United States according to
their seismic hazard potential. Four regions are defined by the UBC, Seismic Zones 1 through 4, with
Zone 1 having the least seismic potential and Zone 4 having the highest. The City of South Gate is located
within Seismic Zone 4.
State
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Alquist-Priolo Act). The Alquist-Priolo Act was passed in
1972 to provide a mechanism for reducing losses from surface fault rupture on a Statewide basis. The main
intent of the Alquist-Priolo Act is to ensure public safety by preventing the construction of buildings used for
human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The Alquist Priolo Act only addresses the hazard of
surface fault rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards. The law requires the State
Geologist to establish regulatory zones, known as Earthquake Fault Zones, around the surface traces of active
faults and to issue appropriate maps. The maps are distributed to all affected cities, counties, and state
agencies for their use in planning and controlling new or renewed construction. Local agencies must regulate
most development projects within the zones. The City of South Gate is not delineated by the California
Geological Survey as an affected city. 1
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act. The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 was passed in the State of
California to address the effects of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, and other ground failures
due to seismic events. Under the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, the State Geologist is required to delineate
“seismic hazard zones.” Cities and counties must regulate certain development projects within these zones
until the geologic and soil conditions of the project area are investigated and appropriate mitigation
measures, if any, are incorporated into development plans. The State Mining and Geology Board provides
additional regulations and policies to assist municipalities in preparing the Safety Element of their General
Plan and encourage land use management policies and regulations to reduce and mitigate those hazards to
protect public health and safety. Under PRC Section 2697, cities and counties shall require, prior to the
approval of a project located in a seismic hazard zone, a geotechnical report defining and delineating any
seismic hazard. Each city or county shall submit one copy of each geotechnical report, including mitigation
measures, to the State Geologist within 30 days of its approval.
1
California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Maps;
http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/ap/ap_maps.htm accessed on December 10, 2012.
taha 2012-090 4.4-1

California Building Code (CBC). The CBC, found in the Title 24 of the CCR, is a compilation of State
building standards, including seismic safety standards for new buildings. The CBC standards are based on
building standards that have been adopted by State agencies without change from a national model code;
building standards based on a national model code that have been changed to address particular California
conditions; and building standards authorized by the California legislature but not covered by the national
model code. Given the State’s susceptibility to seismic events, the seismic standards within the CBC are
among the strictest in the world. The CBC applies to all occupancies in the State, except where stricter
standards have been adopted by local agencies.
CBC Appendix J applies to grading, excavation, and earthwork construction, and requires that no grading
shall be performed without first having obtained a permit from the building official. Section J104.3 requires
the preparation of a geotechnical report that contains at least the following:
• The nature and distribution of existing soils
• Conclusions and recommendations for grading procedures
• Soil design criteria for any structures or embankments required to accomplish the proposed grading
• Where necessary, slope stability studies, and recommendations and conclusions regarding site geology
Additionally, Section J104.4 for sites with mapped maximum considered earthquake spectral response
accelerations at short periods (Ss) greater than 0.5g as determined by CBC Chapter 16 Section 1613, a
liquefaction potential study of the site shall be provided, and the recommendations incorporated in grading
and construction plans.
Field Act. The Field Act, contained in the California Education Code Sections 17280, et. seq. for K–12 and
81130, et. seq. for community colleges, was passed in 1933 as a response to the Long Beach earthquake of
1933 which destroyed 70 public schools and caused major structural damage in 120 others. This Act
established the DSA which develops accessibility, structural safety, fire and life safety, and historical
building codes and standards utilized in various public and private buildings throughout the State of
California. The DSA also provides plan review and design and construction oversight for K–12 schools,
community colleges, and various other state-owned and leased facilities. The DSA's oversight for structural
safety of school facilities is governed by the provisions of the Field Act. The Field Act imposes important
requirements on California schools that are not present in other types of construction approval processes:
• Licensed design professionals must prepare drawings and specifications for proposed construction work;
• Drawings and specifications have to be verified by DSA for compliance with applicable building codes;
• The building codes utilized in the design of school buildings contain structural provisions superior to
many other types of facilities, with consideration for known seismic activity in California;
• A project owner (school or community college district) must hire a DSA-certified inspector to oversee
construction. The inspector selection must be approved by the design professionals and the DSA;
• Changes to approved drawings and specifications for DSA-regulated portions of the project shall be
submitted and approved by DSA prior to commencement of work; and
• At the conclusion of construction, the design professionals, the inspector and the contractor shall file
verified reports with DSA indicating the work has been performed in compliance with the approved
plans and specifications.
As the proposed project is the construction of a new LACCD satellite college campus, the proposed project must
comply with all Field Act requirements and is subject to plan review and construction oversight by the DSA.
Local
City of South Gate General Plan Healthy Community Element. The City of South Gate General
Plan 2035 provides growth and development policies by providing a comprehensive long-range view of the
City as a whole. The Healthy Community Element of the General Plan addresses the issues of protecting
taha 2012-090 4.4-2

people from unreasonable risks associated with natural disasters, fires, floods, and earthquakes. The Health
Community Element provides a contextual framework for understanding the relationship between hazard
mitigation, response to a natural disaster, and initial recovery from a natural disaster. The Healthy
Community Element incorporates background material and policies of the Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan
that was adopted by the City in October, 26, 2004 and amended May 13, 2008. A goal of the Health
Community Element is to reduce risks to the community from earthquakes and other natural and manmade
hazards. While California Government Code Section 53094 includes provisions for school districts to
exempt classroom facilities from local zoning regulations, applicable objectives and policies of the City’s
General Plan related to geology and soils are identified in Table 4.4-1.
TABLE 4.4-1: APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RELATED TO GEOLOGY
AND SOILS
HEALTHY COMMUNITY ELEMENT
Objective HC 8.1 Regulate new development to prevent the creation of new geologic and seismic hazards.
Policy P.1 New underground utilities, particularly water and natural gas lines, will be designed to meet the
most current seismic resistant design standards.
Policy P.2 Soil and/or geologic reports will continue to be required, as appropriate, for development in
potentially seismic areas.
Policy P.5 All new construction will conform to the Uniform Building Code, which specifies requirements
for seismic design, foundations and drainage.
City of South Gate Building Code (SGBC). Chapter 9.02 of the SGMC, known as the SGBC, governs
earthwork activities, including grading that occur in the City. The City adopted the CBC as its building code,
with certain City-specific amendments. All City-specific amendments to the CBC are listed in SGMC
Section 9.02.030. The majority of these amendments are administrative in nature. The City’s Excavation
and Grading Code, SGMC Section 9.02.030(H), is an amendment of the CBC Appendix J (Grading) and
includes specific requirements related to cut and fill slope design, geologic investigations and reports before
and during construction, retaining walls, soil and rock testing, basement walls, and shoring of adjacent
properties. SGMC Section J105 requires that all projects requiring a grading permit prepare a soil
engineering and engineering geology report that includes information appropriate for the site including
boring logs, mitigation recommendations and any information required by the Building Official.
Recommendations included in the reports and approved by the Building Official shall be incorporated in the
grading plans or specifications.
EXISTING SETTING
The approximately 18.5-acre project site is located at the northwest corner of the Firestone Boulevard/Santa
Fe Avenue intersection in the City of South Gate. The project site is currently developed with four buildings,
and paved truck yards, parking lots, and driveways. The project site is almost entirely covered with
impervious surfaces. The project site slopes slightly toward the south with a maximum surface elevation
difference of five feet and has an average elevation of approximately 129 feet above mean sea level (msl). 2
The project site is located within the Los Angeles Forebay Area of the Central Basin. 3 The Central Basin
covers most of the Coastal Plain of Los Angeles County east and northeast of the Newport-Inglewood uplift.
The Central Basin is bounded on the southeast by the Los Angeles – Orange County line, on the west and
2
3
Ibid.
taha 2012-090 4.4-3

south by the Newport-Inglewood uplift, and on the north by the Hollywood Basin and a series of low hills,
which are interrupted by the Los Angeles and Whittier Narrows.
Seismicity
The majority of Southern California, including the project site is located within Seismic Zone 4. The UBC defines
Seismic Zone 4 as the zone where the highest potential for seismic hazards to occur exists. Seismic zones are
based on a statistical compilation of the number and the magnitude of past earthquakes. Since the project site is
within seismically active Southern California, earthquakes and seismically-induced effects are constant potential
hazards. Issues of concern include fault rupture, strong ground shaking, liquefaction, and landslides.
Faults. Faults are characterized by the CGS as active, potentially active, or inactive, according to the fault’s
last seismic activity. Active faults are those that are believed to have moved within historic or recorded time,
or have been included in the State of California Earthquake Fault Zones in accordance with the Alquist-
Priolo Act. Potentially active faults are those faults that are believed to have moved between 11,000 and two
million years ago. Potentially active faults are further subdivided into high and low-potential subgroups.
High-potential faults are those faults which have evidence or movement in shallower Holocene deposits
(i.e., evidence of movement within the last 11,000 years). Low-potential faults show evidence of movement
in deeper Pleistocene Age deposits (i.e., movement within 11,000 to 2 million years). Inactive faults are
those without recognized Holocene or Pleistocene Age activity.
The project site is not located within an earthquake fault zone. 4 However, there are a number of active and
potentially active faults that could affect the project area. These include, but are not limited to, the East
Montebello Fault Zone, Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone, Overland Avenue Fault Zone, Charnock Fault
Zone, Palos Verdes Fault Zone, Cabrillo Fault Zone, and Los Alamitos Fault Zone (Figure 4.4-1). The
nearest active or potentially active fault is the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone. The Newport-Inglewood
Fault Zone, located approximately four miles to the southwest of the project site, at its nearest point, is
approximately 75-kilometers in length and oriented in a northwest to southeast diagonal direction. Starting
south of the City of Signal Hill, the fault zone roughly parallels the coastline until just south of Newport Bay,
where it heads offshore and becomes the Newport-Inglewood-Rose Canyon fault zone.
The surface trace of the Newport-Inglewood Fault is discontinuous in the Los Angeles Basin; however, the
fault zone can easily be noted by the existence of a chain of low hills extending from the City of Culver City
to Signal Hill. The probable magnitude of a seismic event on the Newport-Inglewood fault would range
from 6.0 to 7.4 on the Richter Scale. 5
Ground Shaking. Ground shaking is the actual trembling or jerking motion of the ground during an
earthquake. The most widespread damaging effects of earthquakes are caused by strong ground shaking and
can vary widely across an area and depend on such factors as earthquake intensity and fault mechanism,
duration of shaking, soil conditions, type of building, and other factors. As with all properties in the
seismically-active Southern California region, the project site is susceptible to strong seismic ground
shaking. Numerous regional and local faults are capable of producing severe earthquakes of magnitude 6.0
or greater. Usually, the effect of an earthquake originating from any given fault will depend upon its
distance from the project site and the size of the earthquake the fault generates.
4
California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Maps;
http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/ap/ap_maps.htm accessed on December 10, 2012.
5
California Institute of Technology, Southern California Earthquake Data Center, Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone, available
at: http://www.data.scec.org/significant/newport.html, accessed December 10, 2012.
taha 2012-090 4.4-4

EA
ST
101
10
M
O
5
N
TE
CITY OF
BE
LOS ANGELES
LL
O
FA
U
10
LT
60
NE
WP
OV
OR
ER
T-IN
L
AN
G
LE
DA
WO
110
VE
O
NU
DF
PROJECT SITE 710

EF
AU
CH
AU
LT
5
AR
LT
N
CITY OF
OC
SOUTH GATE
KF
AU
NE
LT
105
WP
OR
T-IN
GL
605
EW
OO
405
DF
91
AU
LT
CITY OF
LO
1
LONG BEACH
S
A
LA
M
N
IT
EW
O
PO
S
FA
R
T-
U
IN
LT
PA G
LO LE
S W
VE 1 O
CA RD O
BR ES D
IL FA FA
LO UL U
T LT
FA
UL
T
LEGEND:
N
Project Location Approx.
Scale
Faults
0 1.5 3.0
SOURCE: United States Geological Survey and TAHA, 2013. MILES
taha 2012-090
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report REGIONAL FAULTS
Liquefaction. Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which the strength and stiffness of a soil is reduced by
ground shaking or other rapid loading causing soil to transform into a liquid state. Liquefaction typically
occurs in loose, saturated sediments where the groundwater level is shallow, and loose, fine sands that occur
at a depth of about 50 feet or less. Factors that affect liquefaction include water level, soil type, particle size
distribution and gradation, relative density, confining pressure, intensity of shaking and duration of shaking.
The South Gate Quadrangle Seismic Hazard Zones Map prepared by the California Department of
Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, indicates that nearly the entire South Gate quadrangle,
including the project site, is susceptible to liquefaction. 6
Landslides. A landslide is the descent of earth and rock down a slope in a rapid manner. As the project site
is nearly flat, there is minimal potential for landslides.
Soil Stability
Unstable Soils. Under certain circumstances, strong ground shaking can cause densification or compaction
of soils resulting in local or regional settlement of the ground surface. This can result in local differential
settlement and damage to foundations and structures, as well as damage to water and sewer lines. The
potential for seismically-induced settlement to occur is controlled by the intensity and duration of ground
shaking, and the relative density of the subsurface soils. 7 Recently deposited alluvial sediments, such as
those present at the project site, are potentially subject to seismically induced settlement.
Low-angle land sliding that is associated with liquefaction and occurs on mildly sloping surfaces such as
drainage channels or stream banks is a condition called lateral spreading. Since the project site is nearly flat
and there are no surface water courses, even though there is a high liquefaction potential, there is minimal
potential for lateral spreading.
Subsidence occurs when land collapses upon itself and is a result of excessive pumping of either
groundwater or oil in certain types of sediments. Subsidence can occur on a regional or localized scale.
Since there is no active oil pumping near the project site and groundwater pumping is monitored by the
Watermaster of the Central Basin, the State Department of Water Resources, subsidence on the project site is
not expected to occur in the event of an earthquake.
Expansive Soils. Expansive soils are those that swell when wetted and shrink when dried. A soil’s potential
to shrink and swell depends on the amount of clay in the soil, with the potential increasing as the clay content
increases. Expansive soils located beneath structures can result in cracked foundations, interior and exterior
wall separations, and ruptured utilities. As previously mentioned, the proposed project would be constructed
in an area underlain by Hanford Association soils. These soils are well drained and considered to have low
expansion potential.
Soil Erosion
The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works identifies the soil beneath the project site as the
Hanford Association soils. Hanford Association soils are characteristically a pale-brown, slightly acidic
sandy loam. 8 This soil series consists of deep, typically over 60 inches in thickness, well drained soils that
form in moderately coarse textured alluvium. Hanford Association soils are on stream bottoms, floodplains,
and alluvial fans that are derived predominantly from the San Gabriel Mountains. 9 These soils have low
potential for erosion.
6
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, South Gate Quadrangle, Official Seismic Hazard
Zones Map, March 25, 1999.
7
Relative density is the ratio between the in-place density and the maximum density.
8
A loam is general term for any permeable soil with roughly equal amounts of sand, clay, and/or gravel.
9
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Official Soil Series Descriptions,
Available at: https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/H/HANFORD.html, accessed January 12, 2011.
taha 2012-090 4.4-6

impact related to geology and soils if it would:
• Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death, involving:
o Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issues by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of
a known fault;
o Strong seismic ground shaking;
o Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction;
o Landslides;
• Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil;
• Be located on a geologic unit that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading subsidence, liquefaction or collapse;
• Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property; and/or
• Have soils capable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water.
IMPACTS
CONSTRUCTION
The proposed project is the construction of the FEC, a new LACCD satellite college campus, on a site
currently developed with four buildings, and paved truck yards, parking lots, and driveways. As the proposed
project is the construction of a community college, the proposed project is required to comply with all Field
Act requirements. Specifically, the proposed project is subject to DSA seismic design standards. Project
construction plans must be prepared by a qualified California-licensed structural engineer and architect, and
design and plan checks must be conducted by the DSA for Field Act compliance. Further, during
construction, inspections would be conducted regularly by qualified inspectors, and periodically by
responsible architects and/or structural engineers to verify that actual construction complies with approved
plans.
Construction of the proposed project would result in the grading of the project site, and, therefore, would be
required to obtain a grading permit. As required by Appendix J of the CBC for projects requiring a grading
permit, a geotechnical report would be prepared for the proposed project that would be subject to approval by
the Building Official. This geotechnical report would contain the nature and distribution of existing soils;
conclusions and recommendations for grading procedures; soil design criteria for any structures or
embankments required to accomplish the proposed grading; and where necessary, slope stability studies, and
recommendations and conclusions regarding site geology. The geotechnical report would address all Field
Act, UBC, CBC, and SGBC requirements. These requirements relate to foundation design and structural
engineering intended to mitigate impacts associated with seismic hazards including fault rupture, strong
ground shaking, liquefaction, and landslides, and geology issues such as soil instability that may result in
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse, and expansive soils. All requirements and
recommendations identified in the report would be incorporated into the grading plans or specifications.
taha 2012-090 4.4-7

Seismicity
Faults. The proposed project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Zone, and no known active faults cross
the project site (Figure 4.4-1, above). Since there are no active fault zones located within, or adjacent to, the
project site, the potential for surface ground rupture is considered null. 10 Therefore, no impacts related to
faults would occur.
Ground Shaking. The project site is located in Seismic Zone 4, where the highest potential for seismic
hazards to occur exists. Accordingly, like the majority of the Southern California, the proposed development
and its occupants would be susceptible to strong ground shaking. However, compliance with seismic safety
standards identified in the applicable building codes and requirements, described above, would reduce the
likelihood that the proposed project would expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking. Approval of a site-
specific geotechnical report by the Building Official, as required by Appendix J of the CBC, as well as
review and approval of all construction and design plans by the DSA, as required by the Field Act, would
ensure that the proposed project complies with all applicable building codes and requirements, reducing
impacts associated with seismic hazards to the greatest extent feasible. Therefore, the proposed project would
result in less-than-significant impacts related to ground shaking.
Liquefaction. The South Gate Quadrangle Seismic Hazard Zones Map, prepared by the California
Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, indicates that nearly the entire South Gate
quadrangle, including the project site, is susceptible to liquefaction. 11 However, compliance with all seismic
safety standards indentified in the applicable building codes and requirements would reduce the likelihood
that the proposed project would expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving liquefaction. Approval of a site-specific geotechnical report and
liquefaction study (if determined necessary) by the Building Official prior to issuance of a grading permit, as
required by required by Appendix J of the CBC, as well as review and approval of all construction and
design plans by the DSA, as required by the Field Act, would ensure that the proposed project complies with
all applicable building codes and requirements, reducing impacts associated with seismic hazards to the
greatest extent feasible. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related
to liquefaction.
Landslides. As the project site and surrounding area are flat, there is no potential for landslides during
construction. Therefore, no impacts related to landslides would occur.
Soil Stability
Unstable Soils. Alluvial sediments, such as those present at the project site, are potentially subject to soil
settlement. Additionally, as described above, the project site is susceptible to liquefaction. Potential impacts
associated with soils underlying the project site, such as settlement and liquefaction, would be reduced
through compliance with applicable building codes and requirements to address foundation design and
structural engineering. Approval of a site-specific geotechnical report by the Building Official, as required
by Appendix J of the CBC, as well as review and approval of all construction and design plans by the DSA,
as required by the Field Act, would ensure that the proposed project complies with all applicable building
codes and requirements, reducing impacts associated with unstable soils to the greatest extent feasible.
Therefore, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to unstable soils.
10
Due to the intense seismic environment of southern California, there is always the potential for blind thrust faults, or
otherwise unmapped faults, which do not have a surface trace.
11
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, South Gate Quadrangle, Official Seismic
Hazard Zones Map, March 25, 1999.
taha 2012-090 4.4-8

Expansive Soils. As previously discussed, the proposed project would be constructed in an area underlain
by Hanford Association soils, which are well drained and considered to have low expansion potential.
Regardless, potential impacts associated with expansive soils would be reduced through compliance with all
applicable building codes and requirements to address foundation design and structural engineering.
Approval of a site-specific geotechnical report by the Building Official, as required by Appendix J of the
CBC, as well as review and approval of all construction and design plans by the DSA, as required by the
Field Act, would ensure that the proposed project complies with all applicable building codes and
requirements, reducing impacts associated with expansive soils to the greatest extent feasible. Therefore, the
proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to expansive soils.
Soil Erosion
The proposed project would be constructed in an area underlain by Hanford Association soils, which are well
drained and considered to have low erosion potential. However, during construction there would be the
potential for the release of fugitive dust, resulting in a small, temporary, loss of topsoil. Implementation of
Best Management Practices (BMPs) required as part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit and application of Air Quality Management District (AQMD) Rule 403 to reduce air quality
impacts during construction would reduce soil erosion to the maximum extent possible. Therefore, the
proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to soil erosion.
OPERATIONS
As described under the construction impact analysis, the proposed project would be designed and constructed
to comply with applicable building codes and requirements, including the Field Act, UBC, CBC, and SGBC.
Compliance with these building codes and requirements would reduce impacts associated with seismic
hazards and soils underlying the site to the greatest extent feasible over the lifetime of the proposed project.
Therefore, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to seismicity, soil
stability and soil erosion.
MITIGATION MEASURES
CONSTRUCTION
Impacts related to seismicity, soil stability and soil erosion would be less than significant. No mitigation
measures are required.
OPERATIONS
Impacts related to seismicity, soil stability and soil erosion would be less than significant. No mitigation

CONSTRUCTION
Impacts related to seismicity, soil stability and soil erosion would be less than significant without mitigation.
OPERATIONS
Impacts related to seismicity, soil stability and soil erosion would be less than significant without mitigation.
taha 2012-090 4.4-9

2013 Firestone Education Center Master Plan 4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
4.5 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

This section provides an overview of existing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventories and regulations
and evaluates the operational impacts associated with the proposed project. Topics addressed include
construction emissions and consistency with applicable GHG reduction plans and policies.
GHG emissions refer to a group of emissions that are generally believed to affect global climate conditions.
The greenhouse effect compares the Earth and the atmosphere surrounding it to a greenhouse with glass
panes. The glass panes in a greenhouse let heat from sunlight in and reduce the amount of heat that escapes.
GHGs, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O), keep the average surface
temperature of the Earth close to 60 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth would
have an average surface temperature of about 5°F.
In addition to CO2, CH4, and N2O, GHGs include hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride,
and water vapor. Of all the GHGs, CO2 is the most abundant pollutant that contributes to climate change
through fossil fuel combustion. In 2002, CO2 comprised 83.3 percent of the total GHG emissions in
California. 1 The other GHGs are less abundant but have higher global warming potential than CO2. To
account for this higher potential, emissions of other GHGs are frequently expressed in the equivalent mass of
CO2, denoted as CO2e. The CO2e of CH4 and N2O represented 6.4 and 6.8 percent, respectively, of the 2002
California GHG emissions. Other high global warming potential gases represented 3.5 percent of these
emissions. 2 In addition, there are a number of human-made pollutants, such as CO, NOX, non-methane
VOC, and SO2, that have indirect effects on terrestrial or solar radiation absorption by influencing the
formation or destruction of other climate change emissions.
In response to growing scientific and political concern with global climate change, California has adopted a
series of laws to reduce emissions of GHGs into the atmosphere. Applicable regulations are provided below.
Executive Order (E.O.) S-3-05. On June 1, 2005, E.O. S-3-05 set the following GHG emission reduction
targets: by 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; by 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and
by 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. The Executive Order establishes State
GHG emission targets of 1990 levels by 2020 (the same as AB 32) and 80 percent below 1990 levels by
2050. It calls for the Secretary of California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) to be responsible
for coordination of State agencies and progress reporting. A recent California Energy Commission report
concludes, however, that the primary strategies to achieve this target should be major “decarbonization” of
electricity supplies and fuels, and major improvements in energy efficiency.
In response to the E.O., the Secretary of the Cal/EPA created the Climate Action Team (CAT). California’s
CAT originated as a coordinating council organized by the Secretary for Environmental Protection. It included
the Secretaries of the Natural Resources Agency, the Department of Food and Agriculture, and the Chairs of the
Air Resources Board, Energy Commission, and Public Utilities Commission. The original council was an
informal collaboration between the agencies to develop potential mechanisms for reductions in GHG emissions
in the State. The council was given formal recognition in E.O. S-3-05 and became the CAT.
1
California Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the
Legislature, March 2006, p. 11.
2
Ibid.
taha 2012-090 4.5-1

The original mandate for the CAT was to develop proposed measures to meet the emission reduction targets
set forth in the executive order. The CAT has since expanded and currently has members from 18 State
agencies and departments. The CAT also has ten working groups which coordinate policies among their
members. The working groups and their major areas of focus are:
• Agriculture: Focusing on opportunities for agriculture to reduce GHG emissions through efficiency
improvements and alternative energy projects, while adapting agricultural systems to climate change
• Biodiversity: Designing policies to protect species and natural habitats from the effects of climate change
• Energy: Reducing GHG emissions through extensive energy efficiency policies and renewable energy
generation
• Forestry: Coupling GHG mitigation efforts with climate change adaptation related to forest preservation
and resilience, waste to energy programs and forest offset protocols
• Land Use and Infrastructure: Linking land use and infrastructure planning to efforts to reduce GHG
from vehicles and adaptation to changing climatic conditions
• Oceans and Coastal: Evaluating the effects sea level rise and changes in coastal storm patterns on human
and natural systems in California
• Public Health: Evaluating the effects of GHG mitigation policies on public health and adapting public
health systems to cope with changing climatic conditions
• Research: Coordinating research concerning impacts of and responses to climate change in California
• State Government: Evaluating and implementing strategies to reduce GHG emissions resulting from
State government operations
Water: Reducing GHG impacts associated with the State’s water systems and exploring strategies to protect
water distribution and flood protection infrastructure
Assembly Bill (AB) 32. In September 2006, the State passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act
of 2006, also known as AB 32, into law. AB 32 focuses on reducing GHG emissions in California, and
requires the CARB to adopt rules and regulations that would achieve GHG emissions equivalent to Statewide
levels in 1990 by 2020. To achieve this goal, AB 32 mandates that the CARB establish a quantified
emissions cap, institute a schedule to meet the cap, implement regulations to reduce Statewide GHG
emissions from stationary sources, and develop tracking, reporting, and enforcement mechanisms to ensure
that reductions are achieved. Because the intent of AB 32 is to limit 2020 emissions to the equivalent of
1990, it is expected that the regulations would affect many existing sources of GHG emissions and not just
new general development projects. Senate Bill (SB) 1368, a companion bill to AB 32, requires the
California Public Utilities Commission and the California Energy Commission to establish GHG emission
performance standards for the generation of electricity. These standards will also apply to power that is
generated outside of California and imported into the State.
AB 32 charges CARB with the responsibility to monitor and regulate sources of GHG emissions in order to
reduce those emissions. On June 1, 2007, CARB adopted three discrete early action measures to reduce
GHG emissions. These measures involved complying with a low carbon fuel standard, reducing refrigerant
loss from motor vehicle air conditioning maintenance, and increasing methane capture from landfills. On
October 25, 2007, CARB tripled the set of previously approved early action measures. The approved
measures include improving truck efficiency (i.e., reducing aerodynamic drag), electrifying port equipment,
reducing perfluorocarbons from the semiconductor industry, reducing propellants in consumer products,
promoting proper tire inflation in vehicles, and reducing sulfur hexaflouride emission from the non-
electricity sector. The CARB has determined that the total Statewide aggregated GHG 1990 emissions level
and 2020 emissions limit is 427 million metric tons of CO2e. The 2020 target reductions are currently
estimated to be 174 million metric tons of CO2e.
The CARB AB 32 Scoping Plan contains the main strategies to achieve the 2020 emissions cap. The Scoping
Plan was developed by the CARB with input from the CAT and proposes a comprehensive set of actions
designed to reduce overall carbon emissions in California, improve the environment, reduce oil dependency,
taha 2012-090 4.5-2

diversify energy sources, enhance public health while creating new jobs, and improve the State economy. The
GHG reduction strategies contained in the Scoping Plan include direct regulations, alternative compliance
mechanisms, monetary and non-monetary incentives, voluntary actions, and market-based mechanisms such as
a cap-and-trade system. Key approaches for reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 include:
• Expand and strengthen existing energy efficiency programs as well as building and appliance standards;
• Achieve a Statewide renewable electricity standard of 33 percent;
• Develop a California cap-and-trade program that links with other Western Climate Initiative partner
programs to create a regional market system;
• Establish targets for transportation-related GHG emissions for regions throughout California, and pursue
policies and incentives to achieve those targets; and
• Adopt and implement measures to reduce transportation sector emissions, including California’s.
CARB also requires GHG reporting for certain types of facilities that make up the bulk of the stationary
source emissions in California. The regulation language identifies major facilities as those that generate
more than 25,000 metric tons of CO2 per year. Cement plants, oil refineries, electric generating
facilities/providers, co-generation facilities, hydrogen plants, and other stationary combustion sources that
emit more than 25,000 metric tons of CO2 per year, make up 94 percent of the point source CO2 emissions in
California.
California Green Building Code. The California Green Building Code, referred to as CalGreen, is the first
Statewide green building code. It was developed to provide a consistent, approach for green building within
California. CalGreen lays out minimum requirements for newly constructed buildings in California, which
will reduce greenhouse gas emissions through improved efficiency and process improvements. It requires
builders to install plumbing that cuts indoor water use by as much as 20 percent, to divert 50 percent of
construction waste from landfills to recycling, and to use low-pollutant paints, carpets, and floors.
CEQA Guidelines Amendments. California Senate Bill (SB) 97 required the Governor’s Office of
Planning and Research (OPR) to develop CEQA Guidelines “for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions
or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions.” The CEQA Guidelines amendments provide guidance to public
agencies regarding the analysis and mitigation of the effects of GHG emissions in CEQA documents.
Noteworthy revisions to the CEQA Guidelines include:
• Lead agencies should quantify all relevant GHG emissions and consider the full range of project features
that may increase or decrease GHG emissions as compared to the existing setting;
• Consistency with the CARB Scoping Plan is not a sufficient basis to determine that a project’s GHG
emissions would not be cumulatively considerable;
• A lead agency may appropriately look to thresholds developed by other public agencies, including the
CARB’s recommended CEQA thresholds;
• To qualify as mitigation, specific measures from an existing plan must be identified and incorporated
into the project. General compliance with a plan, by itself, is not mitigation;
• The effects of GHG emissions are cumulative and should be analyzed in the context of CEQA’s
requirements for cumulative impact analysis; and
• Given that impacts resulting from GHG emissions are cumulative, significant advantages may result
from analyzing such impacts on a programmatic level. If analyzed properly, later projects may tier,
incorporate by reference, or otherwise rely on the programmatic analysis.
CARB Guidance. CARB published draft guidance for setting interim GHG significance thresholds
(October 24, 2008). The guidance does not attempt to address every type of project that may be subject to
CEQA, but instead focuses on common project types that are responsible for substantial GHG emissions
(i.e., industrial, residential, and commercial projects). CARB believes that thresholds in these important
sectors will advance climate objectives, streamline project review, and encourage consistency and uniformity
in the CEQA analysis of GHG emissions throughout the State.
taha 2012-090 4.5-3

SCAQMD Guidance. SCAQMD has convened a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group to
provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in their CEQA
documents. Members of the working group include government agencies implementing CEQA and
representatives from various stakeholder groups that will provide input to the SCAQMD staff on developing
GHG CEQA significance thresholds. On December 5, 2008, the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted the
staff proposal for an interim GHG significance threshold for projects where the SCAQMD is the lead agency.
The SCAQMD has not adopted guidance for CEQA projects under other lead agencies.
City of South Gate General Plan Green City Element. The Green Element of the South Gate General
Plan provides goals, objectives, policies, and implementation actions on making South Gate a “green” city.
The element addresses parks, civic plazas, open space, rivers, trails, equestrian facilities, the conservation of
natural resources, energy and climate change, and green building. Objectives and policies of the City’s
General Plan related to GHG and applicable to the proposed project are identified in Table 4.5-1.

GREENHOUSE GAS
GREEN CITY ELEMENT
Objective GC 5.3 Create "green" parking lots with trees and other landscaping in order to improve visual
appearance and to minimize negative effects on the environment.
Policy P.1 Large parking lots as part of new development or major renovations should be well landscaped
with trees and other greenery and designed to hold and filter stormwater runoff, reduce heat
island effects and create a comfortable pedestrian environment.
Policy P.2 Where parking lots front public streets, landscaping should be provided to serve as a buffer
between the parking lot and the public right-of-way.
Objective GC 5.4 Increase the use of environmentally preferable products in city purchasing and operations
Policy P.5 The City should use recycled-content materials for building, streetscaping and roadway
construction whenever feasible.
Objective GC 6.1 Increase the use of green techniques in new buildings, new building sites and building remodels
and retrofits.
Policy P.1 All new municipal buildings should meet or exceed silver in the appropriate LEED Rating System,
or a comparable green building standard.
Policy P.2 The City should encourage green building techniques efforts in single-family homes as well as in
new municipal, commercial, mixed-use or multifamily residential projects.
Policy P.4 The City should emphasize design for water conservation in its green building efforts.
Policy P.5 New buildings should meet or exceed California Title 24 energy efficiency requirements.
Policy P.6 When feasible or required by law, new development should utilize Low Impact Design (LID)
features, including infiltration of stormwater, but LID should not interfere with the City’s goals of
infill development and appropriate densities as defined in the Community Design Element.
Policy P.7 The City should assess all new development’s use of green building techniques as a formal stage
of design review.
Policy P.8 The City may finance energy efficiency retrofits and on-site renewable energy installation through
a local assessment district, or provide administrative or financial support in other ways.
Policy P.9 On an ongoing basis, City staff should be trained to implement the green building program and to
provide advice and expertise about green building to residents, particularly small-scale
developers or homeowners that may have less access to green building expertise.
Objective GC 7.1 Reduce South Gate’s production of greenhouse emissions and contribution to climate change,
and adapt to the effects of climate change.
Policy P.4 The City will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change with efforts in the
following areas: energy, building, waste, and ecology.
taha 2012-090 4.5-4

EXISTING SETTING
The primary effect of rising global concentrations of atmospheric GHG levels is a rise in the average global
temperature of approximately 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade, determined from meteorological measurements
worldwide between 1990 and 2005. Climate change modeling using 2000 emission rates shows that further
warming is likely to occur given the expected rise in global atmospheric GHG concentrations from
innumerable sources of GHG emissions worldwide, which would induce further changes in the global
climate system during the current century.3 Adverse impacts from global climate change worldwide and in
California include:
 Declining sea ice and mountain snowpack levels, thereby increasing sea levels and sea surface
evaporation rates with a corresponding increase in atmospheric water vapor due to the atmosphere’s
ability to hold more water vapor at higher temperatures;4
 Rising average global sea levels primarily due to thermal expansion and the melting of glaciers, ice caps,
and the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets;5
 Changing weather patterns, including changes to precipitation, ocean salinity, and wind patterns, and
more energetic aspects of extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves, extreme
cold, and the intensity of tropical cyclones;6
 Declining Sierra Mountains snowpack levels, which account for approximately half of the surface water
storage in California, by 70 percent to as much as 90 percent over the next 100 years;7
 Increasing the number of days conducive to ozone formation (e.g., clear days with intense sun light) by
25 to 85 percent (depending on the future temperature scenario) in high O3 areas located in the Southern
California area and the San Joaquin Valley by the end of the 21st Century;8 and
 Increasing the potential for erosion of California’s coastlines and seawater intrusion into the Sacramento
Delta and associated levee systems due to the rise in sea level.9
Scientific understanding of the fundamental processes responsible for global climate change has improved
over the past decade. However, there remain significant scientific uncertainties, for example, in predictions
of local effects of climate change, occurrence of extreme weather events, and effects of aerosols, changes in
clouds, shifts in the intensity and distribution of precipitation, and changes in oceanic circulation. Due to the
complexity of the climate system, the uncertainty surrounding the implications of climate change may never
be completely eliminated. Because of these uncertainties, there continues to be significant debate as to the
extent to which increased concentrations of GHGs have caused or will cause climate change, and with
respect to the appropriate actions to limit and/or respond to climate change. In addition, it may not be
possible to link specific development projects to future specific climate change impacts, though estimating
project-specific impacts is possible.
California is the fifteenth largest emitter of GHG on the planet, representing about two percent of the
worldwide emissions.10 Table 4.5-1 shows the California GHG emissions inventory for years 2000 to 2009.
Statewide GHG emissions slightly decreased in 2009 due to a noticeable drop in on-road transportation,
electricity generation, and industrial emissions.
3
USEPA, Draft Endangerment Finding, 74 Fed. Reg. 18886, 18904, April 24, 2009.
4
Ibid.
5
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change, 2007.
6
Ibid.
7
Cal/EPA, Climate Action Team, Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature, 2006.
8
Ibid.
9
Ibid.
10
CARB, Climate Change Scoping Plan, December 2008.
taha 2012-090 4.5-5

TABLE 4.5-2: CALIFORNIA GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INVENTORY

CO2e Emissions (million metric tons)
Sector 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Transportation 172 175 181 179 183 186 187 187 178 173
Electric Power (In-State) 60 64 51 49 50 46 51 55 55 56
Electric Power (Imports) 46 59 59 65 66 63 55 60 66 48
Commercial and Residential 43 41 43 41 43 41 42 42 42 43
Industrial 97 93 94 92 94 93 92 90 87 81
Recycling and Waste 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
Agriculture 29 29 32 31 32 33 34 33 33 32
Forest Net Emissions (4.5) (4.3) (4.2) (4.2) (4.2) (4.0) (3.9) (3.9) (3.8) (3.8)
Emissions Total 459 475 475 472 484 479 478 485 481 453
SOURCE: CARB, California Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2000-2009, December 2011.
The transportation sector – largely the cars and trucks that move people and goods – is the largest contributor
with 38 percent of the State’s total GHG emissions in 2009. On-road emissions (from passenger vehicles
and heavy duty trucks) constitute 93 percent of the transportation sector total emissions. Of the on-road
vehicles, light duty passenger vehicles accounted for approximately 74 percent of the total sector emissions
in 2009 GHG emissions. Transportation emissions showed a decline from 187 million metric tons of CO2e
in 2007 to 173 million metric tons of CO2e in 2009.
The electricity sector is the next largest contributor at approximately 23 percent of the Statewide GHG
emissions. This sector includes power plants and cogeneration facilities that generate electricity for on-site
use and for sale to the power grid. In 2009, this sector emitted approximately 105 million metric ton of
CO2e. Emissions from imported electricity generation from specified imports, unspecified imports, and
transmission and distribution account for 68 percent, 31 percent, and less than 1 percent, respectively. In-
State electricity generation includes CHP commercial, CHP industrial, merchant owned, transmission and
distribution, and utility owned. The contributions from CHP commercial is approximately 2 percent, CHP
industrial is approximately 30 percent, merchant owned is approximately 57 percent, transmission and
distribution is approximately 1 percent, and utility owned is approximately 18 percent. Emissions from
natural gas accounts for 87 percent of in-State GHG emissions associated with electricity generation.
The industrial sector is the third largest contributor to the Statewide GHG emissions. California’s industrial
sector includes industrial CHP useful heat, landfills, manufacturing, mining, oil and gas extraction,
petroleum refining, petroleum marketing, pipelines, wastewater treatment, and other large industrial sources.
Of these emitters, petroleum refining, manufacturing accounts for 32 percent, oil extraction accounts for
25 percent, gas extraction accounts for 15 percent, CHP accounts for 12 percent, and landfills accounts for
8 percent.
The sector termed recycling and waste management is a unique system, encompassing not just emissions
from waste facilities but also the emissions associated with the production, distribution and disposal of
products throughout the economy.
Although high global warming potential gases (e.g., PFCs, HFCs, and SF6) are a small contributor to historic
GHG emissions, levels of these gases are projected to increase sharply over the next several decades making
them a significant source by 2020. These gases are used in growing industries such as semiconductor
manufacturing.
The forest sector GHG inventory includes CO2 uptake and GHG emissions from wild and prescribed fires,
the decomposition and combustion of residues from harvest and conversion/development, and wood products
decomposition. The forest sector is unique in that forests both emit GHGs and absorb CO2 through carbon
sequestration. While the current inventory shows forests absorb 3.8 million metric tons of CO2e, carbon
taha 2012-090 4.5-6

sequestration has declined since 2000 due to losses of forest area and emission increases from decomposing
wood products consumed in the State. For this reason, the 2020 projection assumes no net emissions from
forests.
The agricultural GHG emissions shown are largely methane emissions from livestock, both from the animals
and their waste. Emissions of GHG from fertilizer application are also important contributors from the
agricultural sector. Opportunities to sequester CO2 in the agricultural sector may also exist; however,
additional research is needed to identify and quantify potential sequestration benefits.
In accordance with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, Options 1 through 4 would have a significant
impact related to greenhouse gases if it would:
• Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment; and/or
• Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions
of GHG.
CARB and SCAQMD have not adopted a significance threshold for analyzing GHG emissions associated with
land use development projects. The significance threshold is based on the methodologies recommended by the
CAPCOA CEQA and Climate Change White Paper (January 2008). CAPCOA conducted an analysis of various
approaches and significance thresholds, ranging from a zero threshold (all projects are cumulatively considerable)
to a high of 40,000 to 50,000 metric tons of CO2e per year. For example, an approach assuming a zero threshold
and compliance with AB 32 2020 targets would require all discretionary projects to achieve a 33 percent reduction
from projected “business-as-usual” emissions to be considered less than significant. A zero threshold approach
could be considered on the basis that climate change is a global phenomenon, and not controlling small source
emissions would potentially neglect a major portion of the GHG inventory. However, the CEQA Guidelines also
recognize that there may be a point where a project’s contribution, although above zero, would not be a
considerable contribution to the cumulative impact (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15130 [a]). Therefore, a threshold
of greater than zero is considered more appropriate for the analysis of GHG emissions under CEQA.
Another method would use a quantitative threshold of greater than 900 metric tons CO2e per year based on a
market capture approach that requires mitigation for greater than 90 percent of likely future discretionary
development. Another potential threshold would be the 10,000 metric tons standard used by the Market
Advisory Committee for inclusion in a GHG Cap and Trade System in California. The basic concepts for the
various approaches suggested by CAPCOA are used herein to determine if GHG emissions are
“cumulatively considerable.”
The most conservative (i.e., lowest) thresholds, suggested by CAPCOA, would not be appropriate for the
proposed project given that it is located in a community that is highly urbanized. Similarly, the 900-ton
threshold was also determined to be too conservative for general development in the South Coast Air Basin.
Consequently, the threshold of 10,000 metric tons CO2e is used as a quantitative benchmark for significance.
IMPACTS
METHODOLOGY
GHG emissions were calculated for mobile sources, natural gas consumption, general electricity
consumption, electricity consumption associated with the use and transport of water, and solid waste
decomposition. Mobile source GHG emissions were obtained from the California Emissions Estimator
taha 2012-090 4.5-7

Model (CalEEMod). CalEEMod is a Statewide land use emissions computer model designed to quantify
potential criteria pollutants and GHG emissions for a variety of land use projects. The model quantifies
direct emissions from construction and operation (including vehicle use), as well as indirect emissions, such
as GHG emissions from energy use, solid waste disposal, vegetation planting and/or removal, and water use.
Natural gas, electricity, water, and solid waste use rates were obtained from Section 4.13 Utilities and
Service Systems of this Subsequent Draft EIR. GHG emission factors for natural gas and electricity were
obtained from the California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol (Protocol) and applied to
the respective consumption rates to calculate annual GHG emissions in metric tons. Proposed project and
existing electricity use were estimated approximately at 3,351,219 and 2,196,219 kilowatt-hours per year,
respectively. Proposed project and existing natural gas use were estimated at 1,754,146 and 1,464,146 cubic
feet per month, respectively.
California’s water infrastructure uses energy to collect, move, and treat water; dispose of wastewater; and
power the large pumps that move water throughout the State. California consumers also use energy to heat,
cool, and pressurize the water they use in their homes and businesses. Together these water-related energy
uses annually account for roughly 20 percent of the State’s electricity consumption, one-third of non-power
plant natural gas consumption, and about 88 million gallons of diesel fuel consumption. The California
Energy Commission has reported that the energy intensity of the water use cycle in Southern California is
12,700 kilowatt-hours per million gallons. Water use was obtained from Section 4.13 Utilities and Service
Systems of this Subsequent Draft EIR. Propose project and existing water usage were estimated
approximately at 231,146 and 15,146 gallons per day, respectively. Proposed project and existing waste
water usage were estimated approximately at 192,622 and 12,621 gallons per day, respectively.
Solid waste was estimated using generation rates provided by the California Department of Resources
Recycling and Recovery. USEPA has stated that solid waste decomposition generates 3.1 metric tons of
CO2e per ton of waste. Solid waste generation was obtained from Section 4.13 Utilities and Service Systems
of this Subsequent Draft EIR. Proposed project and existing solid waste were estimated at 16,169 and 7,169
tons per year, respectively.
CONSTRUCTION
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Construction of the proposed project has the potential to create GHG impacts through the use of heavy-duty
construction equipment and through vehicle trips generated by construction workers traveling to and from
the project site. The assessment of construction GHG impacts considers each of these potential sources.
Construction GHG emissions were estimated using CalEEMod. The proposed project would generate
2,121 metric tons per year of CO2e emissions. The SCAQMD recommends that construction GHG
emissions be amortized over a 30-year span and included in the summary of annual operational emissions.
Therefore, the significance of construction GHG emissions is discussed under operational emissions.
Applicable Plans, Policies or Regulations

The LACCD Board of Trustees mandates the use of sustainable building practices for its campuses, and all
new buildings that are funded with Measure J Bond monies are required to be “green” buildings and built to
LEED certification standards. LEED is a national rating system developed by the USGBC to provide a
benchmark for the design, construction, and operation of green buildings. LACCD is committed to
constructing buildings using a recycled building material and fly-ash concrete mixture and sustainable wood
that has been salvaged, recycled, and certified by the Forest Stewardship Council. In addition, the
construction contractor will be required to divert at least 50 percent and up to 75 percent of construction
waste from landfills. The proposed project would be constructed in a manner such that GHG emissions are
minimized, thus encouraging consistency with plans, policies, and regulations designed to control GHG
taha 2012-090 4.5-8

emissions. Therefore, construction activity would result in a less-than-significant impact related to

consistency with applicable plans, policies, and regulations.
OPERATIONS
The proposed project would result in the construction of a new 100,000-gross-square-foot building and an
approximately 1,600-space parking structure on the northern portion of the project site. In addition, the
project site would be improved with an approximately 60-space surface parking lot, landscaping, an open
space area, and other outdoor amenities. GHG emissions would be generated by on-road mobile vehicle
operations, general electricity consumption, electricity consumption associated with the use and transport of
water, natural gas consumption, and solid waste decomposition. Based on SCAQMD guidance, the
emissions summary also includes construction emissions amortized over a 30-year span. As shown in
Table 4.5-3, the proposed project would result in 7,221 metric tons of CO2e per year under the future with
project conditions. Existing plus project conditions would result in 7,809 metric tons of CO2e per year.
Estimated GHG emissions would be less than the 10,000 metric tons of CO2e per year quantitative
significance threshold. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact related
to GHG emissions.
Applicable Plans, Policies or Regulations

The LACCD Board of Trustees mandates the use of sustainable building practices for its campuses, and all
new buildings that are funded with Measure J Bond monies are required to be “green” buildings and built to
LEED certification standards. As part of achieving LEED certification, the proposed project includes design
strategies related to water efficiency, energy, innovation, indoor air quality, materials and resources, and site
design. Design strategies include, but are not limited to, low flow water efficiency plumbing fixtures, high
performance building envelope, and green power (e.g., solar energy), green cleaning program, kiosk and
signage green education program, the usage of low volatile organic compounds in building materials,
outdoor air delivery monitoring, the usage of recycled building content (e.g., building materials and fly-ash
concrete mixture), sustainable wood, and maximizing infiltration on-site. The FEC Master Plan contains
preliminary LEED checklists for the proposed project.
The CARB AB 32 Scoping Plan contains the main strategies to achieve the 2020 emissions cap. The
Scoping Plan was developed by the CARB with input from the Climate Action Team and proposes a
comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall carbon emissions in California, improve the
environment, reduce oil dependency, diversify energy sources, and enhance public health while creating new
jobs and improving the State economy. The California Attorney General has prepared a Fact Sheet listing
various mitigation measures that local agencies may consider to offset or reduce global warming impacts and
ensure compliance with AB 32.
The proposed project’s consistency with the Attorney General Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures and the
CAPCOA is described Tables 4.5-4 and 4.5-5. The proposed project would meet the objectives and overall
intent of reducing GHGs consistent with direction/measures of the CAPCOA and the Attorney General.
Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to GHG reduction plans
and policies.
taha 2012-090 4.5-9

TABLE 4.5-3: ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Emission Source Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (Metric Tons per Year)
EXISTING WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS
Mobile 4,789
General Electricity 631
Water Cycle Electricity 28
Natural Gas 969
Solid Waste Decomposition 3,261
Total 9,678
EXISTING WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
Mobile 7,543
Natural Gas 1,146
Total 17,416
Net Operational Emissions 7,738
Construction Emissions Amoritized 71
Net Emissions 7,809
Regional Significance Threshold 10,000
Exceed Threshold? No
FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS
Mobile 1,600
Natural Gas 969
Total 8,654
FUTURE WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
Mobile 5,931
Natural Gas 1,146
Total 15,804
Net Operational Emissions 7,150
Construction Emissions Amortized 71
Net Emissions 7,221
Regional Significance Threshold 10,000
Exceed Threshold? No
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
taha 2012-090 4.5-10

TABLE 4.5-4: PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH APPLICABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL GREENHOUSE

GAS REDUCTION MEASURES
Strategy Project Consistency
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Incorporate green building practices and design Consistent: The proposed project includes energy design
elements. strategies. High-performance insulation, optimize shading,
and high performance glazing are part of the building design
features. The proposed project is committed to provide at
least 10% of building's electricity from renewable source.
Meet reorganized green building and energy Consistent: The proposed project would be designed and
efficiency benchmarks. constructed using the USGBC LEED rating system. The
proposed project would seek for the highest LEED certification
level as feasible.
Install energy efficient lighting (e.g., light emitting Consistent: The proposed project includes outdoor air
diodes (LEDS)), heating and cooling systems, delivery monitoring (i.e., air flow sensors) and energy-efficient
appliances, equipment, and control systems. fixtures.
Use passive solar designs (e.g., orient buildings
and incorporate landscaping to maximize passive Consistent: The proposed project building is strategically
solar heating during cooling seasons, minimize oriented to take advantage of natural heating and cooling
solar heat gain during hot seasons, and enhance effects. The new FEC building would maximize south-facing
natural ventilation. Design buildings to take exposure and minimize and protect west-facing windows.
advantage of sunlight.
Provide education on energy efficiency to residents, Consistent: The proposed project includes a kiosk and
customers and/or tenants. signage green education program to promote and heighten
public awareness of sustainability.
RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY STORAGE
Install solar panels on unused roof and ground Consistent: The proposed project is committed to provide at
space and over carports and parking areas. least 10% of building's electricity from renewable source (e.g.,
solar panels).
WATER CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCY
Incorporate water-reducing features into building Consistent: The proposed project incorporates low flow water
and landscape design. efficiency plumbing fixtures (i.e., faucets, toilets, urinals, and
shower heads). The proposed project would maximize
vegetated open space, which includes drought tolerant plants
and ground-cover to conserve water and minimize runoff.
Create water-efficient landscapes. Consistent: The proposed project would maximize vegetated
open space, which includes drought tolerant plants and
ground-cover to conserve water and minimize runoff.
Design buildings to be water-efficient. Install water- Consistent: The proposed project incorporates low flow water
efficient fixtures and appliances. efficiency plumbing fixtures (i.e., faucets, toilets, urinals, and
shower heads). Other water use reduction includes limited
use of project site's potable water, natural surface or
subsurface water resources for landscape irrigcation.
SOLID WASTE
Reuse and recycle construction and demolition Consistent: The proposed project would use recycled building
waste (including, but not limited to, soil, vegetation, materials including fly-ash concrete mixture and sustainable
concrete, lumber, metal, and cardboard). wood (i.e., salvageed, recycled and Forest Stewardship
Council Certified wood products).
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
taha 2012-090 4.5-11

TABLE 4.5-5: PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH CAPCOA GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION

MEASURES
CAPCOA-Suggested Measure Project Consistency
EE-1.1. Green Building Ordinance: Adopt a Green Consistent: The new FEC building would be designed
Building Ordinance that requires new development and and constructed using the United States Green Buildings
redevelopment projects for both residential and Council LEED rating system. At this time, ELAC has not
commercial buildings to incorporate sufficient green decided which LEED certification level that they will be
building methods and techniques to qualify for the seeking; however, the goal is to reach the highest
equivalent of a current LEED Certified rating, certification level feasible.
GreenPoints, or equivalent rating system.
EE-2.1. Improved Building Standards: Adopt energy Consistent: The proposed design strategies include, but
efficiency performance standards for buildings that are not limited to, low flow water efficiency plumbing
achieve a greater reduction in energy and water use than fixtures, high performance building envelop, and green
otherwise required by state law. power (e.g., solar energy).
AE-2.1. On-Site Renewable Energy Generation: New Consistent: The proposed project includes green power
office/retail/commercial or industrial development, or (e.g., solar energy) to provide at least 10% of building's
major rehabilitation shall incorporate renewable energy electricity from renewable sources.
generation either on- or off-site to provide 15% or more of
the project's energy needs.
MO 5.2. Landscaping: Evaluate existing landscaping and Consistent: The proposed project would maximize
options to convert reflective and impervious surfaces to vegetated open space and use drought-tolerant
landscaping, and will install or replace vegetation with vegetations.
drought-tolerant, low-maintenance native species or
edible landscaping that can also provide shade and
reduce heat-island effects.
WRD-2.3. Construction and Demolition Waste: Adopt a Consistent: The proposed project would use recycled
Construction and Demolition Waste Recovery Ordinance, building materials including fly-ash concrete mixture, use
requiring building projects to recycle or reuse a minimum salvaged, recycled and Forest Stewardship Council
percentage of unused or leftover building materials. Certified wood products, and divert construction waste
from landfills for recycling and salvage.
COS-2.2. Water-Efficient Infrastructure and Technology: Consistent: The proposed project includes low-flow
Ensure water-efficient infrastructure and technology are water efficiency plumbing fixtures (i.e., faucets, toilets,
used in new construction, including low-flow toilets and urinals, and shower heads).
shower heads, moisture-sensing irrigation, and other
such advances.
COS-3.1. Water-Efficient Landscapes: Install water- Consistent: The proposed project limits the use of
efficient landscapes and irrigation. project site's potable water, natural surface or
subsurface water resources for landscape irrigation.
EO-1.1. Outreach Methods: Use a variety of media and Consistent: The proposed project includes a Kiosk and
methods to promote climate awareness and GHG Signage Green Education Program to promote and
reductions. heighten public awareness of sustainability.
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
MITIGATION MEASURES
CONSTRUCTION
Impacts related to GHG emissions and consistency with applicable plans, policies, and regulations would be
taha 2012-090 4.5-12

OPERATIONS
Impacts related to GHG emissions and consistency with applicable plans, policies, and regulations would be

CONSTRUCTION
Impacts related to GHG emissions and consistency with applicable plans, policies, and regulations were
determined to be less-than-significant without mitigation.
OPERATIONS
Impacts related to GHG emissions and consistency with applicable plans, policies, and regulations emissions
were determined to be less-than-significant without mitigation.
taha 2012-090 4.5-13

2013 Firestone Education Center Master Plan 4.6 Hazards & Hazardous Materials
4.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

This section provides an overview of hazards and hazardous materials and evaluates the construction and
operational impacts associated with the proposed project. Topics addressed in this section include hazardous
material, schools, airport hazards, emergency response plans, and wildland fires. This section was prepared
utilizing the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), Environmental Sampling Report, and Soil
Removal and Exploratory Excavation Report prepared by Andersen Environmental, and the Underground
Storage Tank Closure and Soil Investigation Report prepared by Parsons for the project site.
Federal
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The RCRA gives the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) the authority to control hazardous waste from the "cradle-to-grave." This includes
the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste by "large-quantity
generators". 1 Under RCRA regulations, hazardous wastes must be tracked from the time of generation to the
point of disposal. At a minimum, each generator of hazardous waste must register and obtain a hazardous waste
activity identification number. A facility that stores hazardous waste for more than 90 days, or treats hazardous
waste, must be permitted under the RCRA. Additionally, all hazardous waste transporters are required to be
permitted and must have an identification number. The RCRA allows individual states to develop their own
program for the regulation of hazardous waste as long as state regulations are at least as stringent as the RCRA.
The USEPA has delegated RCRA enforcement to the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA)
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC).
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). CERLCA,

commonly known as Superfund, was enacted by Congress on December 11, 1980. CERCLA established
prohibitions and requirements concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites; provided for liability
of persons responsible for releases of hazardous waste at these sites; and established a trust fund to provide
for cleanup when no responsible party could be identified. The law authorizes two kinds of response actions;
short-term removals, where actions may be taken to address releases or threatened releases requiring prompt
response and long-term remedial response actions, that permanently and significantly reduce the dangers
associated with releases or threats of releases of hazardous substances that are serious, but not immediately
life threatening. These actions can be conducted only at sites listed on USEPA's National Priorities
List (NPL). CERCLA also enabled the revision of the National Contingency Plan (NCP). The NCP provided
the guidelines and procedures needed to respond to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants, and established the NPL.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The Federal OSHA implements OSHA which
contains provisions related to hazardous materials handling. Federal OSHA requirements, as set forth in
Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Section 1910, et. seq., are intended to promote worker
safety, worker training, and a worker’s right-to-know. The Federal OSHA has delegated the authority to
administer OSHA regulations to the DTSC.
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. Regulations set forth by the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Act of 1975 are contained within CFR Title 49. CFR Title 49 specifies requirements and
regulations, in addition to those OSHA requirements and regulations that pertain to the transport of
hazardous materials. CFR Title 49 requires that every employee who transports hazardous materials receive
1
Large quantity generators produce 1,000 kilograms, or more, hazardous waste per month.
taha 2012-090 4.6-1

training to recognize and identify hazardous materials and become familiar with hazardous materials
requirements. Drivers are also required to be trained in function and commodity specific requirements.
State
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). Cal/EPA’s DTSC has the Statewide authority to
administer and enforce the RCRA. The DTSC has the primary responsibility to regulate the generation,
storage and disposal of hazardous materials; however, DTSC may further delegate its enforcement authority
to local jurisdictions. In addition, the DTSC is responsible and/or provides oversight for contamination
cleanup, and administers state-wide hazardous waste reduction programs. DTSC operates programs to deal
with the aftermath of improper hazardous waste management by overseeing site cleanups, prevent releases of
hazardous waste by ensuring that those who generate, handle, transport, store, and dispose of wastes do so
properly, and evaluate soil, water, and air samples taken at sites.
California Health and Safety Code. The California Health and Safety Code includes statutory code
sections that are implemented by the DTSC. Division 20, Chapter 6.5 of the California Health and Safety
Code establishes regulations and incentives to ensure that the generators of hazardous waste employ
technology and management practices for the safe handling, treatment, recycling, and destruction of their
hazardous wastes prior to disposal. Division 20, Chapter 6.8 of the California Health and Safety Code
establishes a program to provide for response authority for release of hazardous substances, including spill
and hazardous waste disposal sites that pose a threat to the public heath of the environment.
State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB). The storage of hazardous materials in underground
storage tanks (USTs) is regulated by the SWRCB. The SWRCB delegates its authority to regulate USTs to
nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) throughout the State, and typically on the local
level, to the local fire department. The project site is located within the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality
Control Board (LARWQCB) jurisdiction.
California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA). The Cal/OSHA program is
administered and enforced by the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH). Cal/OSHA
regulations identify rules and procedures related to exposure to hazardous materials during demolition and
construction activities. In addition, Cal/OSHA requires employers to implement a comprehensive, written
Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP). An IIPP is an employee safety program for potential
workplace hazards, including those associated with hazardous materials.
Environmental Health Standards for the Management of Hazardous Waste. CCR Title 22, Division 4.5
establishes a hazardous waste management system, identifies and defines hazardous wastes, and includes
standards applicable to hazardous waste generators, transporters, and facilities involved in the handling of
hazardous waste, as well as the management of hazardous waste. Division 4.5 also establishes a Hazardous
Waste Permit Program that requires that a permit is obtained for the transfer, treatment, storage and disposal
of any hazardous waste.
Hazardous Waste Source Reduction and Management Review Act. This Act requires generators that
produce 12,000 kilograms of typical/operational hazardous waste per year to conduct an evaluation of their
waste streams every four years and to select and implement viable source reductions alternatives. This Act does
not apply to non-typical hazardous waste such as asbestos and polychlorinated biphenyls. In addition, the
California Vehicle Code requires that every motor carrier transporting hazardous materials to have a Hazardous
Materials Transportation License issued by the California Highway Patrol. 2
Local
County of Los Angeles Hazardous Materials Control Program. In May 1982, the Los Angeles County
Board of Supervisors established the Hazardous Materials Control Program within the Department of Health
2
California Code of Regulations, Title 13.
taha 2012-090 4.6-2

Services. Originally, this program focused on the inspection of businesses that generate hazardous waste. Since
the program’s inception, it has been expanded to include hazardous materials inspections, criminal
investigations, site mitigation oversight, and emergency response operations. On July 1, 1991, the program
name was changed to Health Hazardous Materials Division (HHMD), and it was transferred to the Los Angeles
County Fire Department (LACFD). The mission of the HHMD is to protect the public health and the
environment throughout Los Angeles County from accidental releases and improper handling, storage,
transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes through coordinated efforts of inspections,
emergency response, enforcement, and site mitigation oversight.
City of South Gate General Plan Healthy Community Element. The City of South Gate General Plan
includes chapters on land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, safety, community
design, educational and cultural resources, and utility infrastructure. The General Plan determines the
potential growth of the City, including residential, commercial, and industrial growth, and then it establishes
goals to accommodate that growth. A stated goal of the General Plan Health Community Element is to
protect the community from the harmful effects of hazardous materials and waste. While California
Government Code Section 53094 includes provisions for school districts to exempt classroom facilities from
local zoning regulations, applicable objectives and policies of the City’s General Plan related to hazards and
hazardous materials are identified in Table 4.6-1.
TABLE 4.6-1: APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RELATED TO HAZARDS
AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
HEALTHY COMMUNITY ELEMENT
Objective HC 9.1 Minimize South Gate residents’ and employees’ exposure to hazardous materials and waste.
Policy P.1 The City will regularly update Hazardous Waste Management procedures and actively implement
appropriate Hazardous Waste Management policies recommended by the Los Angeles County
Emergency Survival Program.
Policy P.2 The City will enforce state and local codes that regulate the use, storage and transportation of
hazardous materials in order to prevent, contain and effectively respond to accidental releases.
Policy P.3 The City should monitor the use and release of hazardous materials in the City.
Policy P.4 The City should, to the extent possible, ensure on a case by case basis that new development near
known locations of hazardous waste or materials is suitable for human habitation and does not pose
higher than average health risks from exposure to hazardous material.
City of South Gate Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan. The City of South Gate has adopted the City of
South Gate Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (Mitigation Plan), which includes resources and information to
assist City residents, public and private sector organizations, and others interested in participating in planning
for natural hazards. 3 The mitigation plan provides a list of activities that may assist City in reducing risk and
preventing loss from future natural hazard events. The action items address multi-hazard issues, as well as
activities for earthquakes, flooding, and windstorms. The Mitigation Plan contains a Mitigation Actions
Matrix for implementation of activities that assist in protecting lives by making homes, businesses,
infrastructure, critical facilities, and other property more resistant to losses from natural hazards.
EXISTING SETTING
Hazardous Materials
The project site is currently occupied with four buildings (Buildings 1 through 4). Buildings 1, 3, and 4 are
partially utilized for warehousing purposes, and Building 2 is currently vacant. The project site and the adjacent
HON site buildings to the west were first occupied by the Firestone Tire and Rubber Plant, which operated from
3
City of South Gate, Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, October 26, 2004, amended May 13, 2008.
taha 2012-090 4.6-3

1927 to 1980. During this time, industrial operations performed on the project site included tire manufacturing
and warehousing, fuel cell production and assembly of corporal missiles (a guided surface-to-surface missile).
The HON site was most recently utilized for metal furniture manufacturing and distribution.
The Firestone Tire Company main manufacturing facility was located on the project site and included
Plants 1 and 4, an administration building, machine shop, powerhouse, pipe shop, reservoir, latex tanks, and
the Banbury building. Buildings 1 and 3 were formerly occupied by Firestone Plant 1, and Building 4 was
Firestone Plant 4. Building 2 was formerly Firestone’s administrative building. A site plan depicting the
buildings and structures as they were when Firestone occupied the project site and adjacent HON site is
presented in Figure 4.6-1.
Tires were manufactured and stored in Plant 1 (Buildings 1 and 3). Crude rubber was delivered via railway
spurs and stored on the northeast corner of the project site. East and west additions to Plant 1 were
constructed in 1929. One 12,000-gallon underground gasoline tank, one 1,000-gallon underground lube oil
tank, and four 50-gallon underground lube oil tanks were installed on the west side of Plant 1 before 1932.
Two 13,000-gallon fuel oil tanks were installed in 1928 and utilized within the Powerhouse located at the
central portion of the project site and were connected by underground piping to the above ground fuel tanks
located at the adjacent HON site. The area east of the mechanical building and reservoirs, which occupied the
northern portion of the project site, remained vacant and unused prior to 1932. A pipe shop was built east of
the mechanical building sometime between 1932 and 1947.
In 1951, Plant 4 (Building 4) was constructed on the northeast corner of the project site and was utilized for tire
storage. The pipe shop that was formerly located on the lot was dismantled. After the completion of Plant 4 in
1951, corporal missile assembly began. Missile parts arrived at the site by railroad and were subsequently
assembled into a final product. The project site was used for final assembly of missiles because rubber, shock-
resistant, missile transportation “cradles” were manufactured and fastened to the ground transportation
equipment at the plant. After their assembly, missiles were then loaded and transported to their final off-site
designation for testing. The metal and guidance components for the missiles were assembled on-site in Plant 4
and “touchup” paint was applied as needed. No fueling or firing of the missiles was conducted on-site. Corporal
missile assembly was discontinued in 1963.
Between 1952 and 1955, a pipe shop was erected south of the water reservoirs to replace the water reservoir that
was demolished as a part of the construction of Plant 4. In 1955, the majority of Plant 4 was converted into a
finished goods and tires warehouse. In 1965, the remainder of Plant 4 was converted to tire and finished goods
storage when fuel cell manufacturing was discontinued at the site. In 1972, a new Banbury mixer and associated
building, known as the Banbury building, were added to the west side of Plant 1. The Banbury building
contained a single Banbury mixer, a transfer mixer, a roller die, a cooling conveyor, and a stacker. Tire
production continued until 1980 at which time the Firestone plant was closed.
In 1981, HON Industries purchased the project site from Firestone, and subdivided the property into two parcels
(the project site and the adjacent Hon site) for the purpose of using those portions separately and because the two
parcels had differing degrees of environmental concerns. HON demolished the Banbury building in late 1981.
The machine shop and pipe shop were demolished and the reservoirs were filled in and paved over in late
1982. The sand trap and degreasing rack associated with the machine shop was filled in during this time.
The 12,000-gallon underground gasoline storage tank located west of Plant 1 was removed in approximately
1984 and closed. The 1,000-gallon underground lubrication oil tank and four 50-gallon underground lubrication
oil tanks, located to the west of Plant 1, were also removed. The removal of the five underground oil lubrication
tanks has been thought to have occurred during installation of a heating and air conditioning system prior to
HON’s ownership, however, the exact removal date is unknown.
taha 2012-090 4.6-4

HON SITE PROJECT SITE
BUILDING 5
FORMER
BUTLER BUILDING
RESERVOIR
CRUDE RUBBER
RESERVOIR
STORAGE
TANK
BUILDING 4
FORMER FARM
QUONSET HUT
PIPE
SHOP BUILDING 4
FORMER PLANT 4
DEBEADING XYLOS BUILDING ABOVEGROUND

ABOVEGROUND
FUEL CELL BUILDING STORAGE TANKS
STORAGE TANKS
TESTING AREA MACHINE
POWERHOUSE
SHOP
LATEX
TANKS
BUILDING 3 BLDG
17
FORMER BLDG 16
BRADBURY
BLDG
BUILDINGS 1 AND 3
BUILDING 2 BUILDING 1 FORMER PLANT 1
FORMER PLANT 5 FORMER PLANT 3
DTCS 1A DTCS 1B
LEGEND:
N
Project Site Remaining Buildings
Approx.
Scale
HON Site Demolished Buildings
0 110 220

Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
taha 2012-090
HISTORIC SITE PLAN
In 1986, HON Industries sold the project site to Indian Wells Estates. The Indian Wells Estates used the project
site for storage and warehousing. In 1991, the Indian Wells Estates fell into bankruptcy. During the bankruptcy
proceedings, the project site was investigated by several environmental consulting firms to assess the
environmental status of the site. These investigations identified the presence of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), and metals in
subsurface soils.
The DTSC subsequently issued an Imminent or Substantial Endangerment Order and Remedial Action Order
(the Order) in April 1994. The Order required that the project site be properly investigated, a clean-up plan
be prepared and submitted, and, contaminated soil and groundwater be remediated. In 2001, the DTSC
named the Santa-Fe-Firestone LLC as a Responsible Party to environmental concerns for the entire former
Firestone Tire and Rubber Plant site.
Soil and Groundwater Contamination. Several environmental investigations have been conducted on the
project site under the guidance of the DTSC since their 1994 order to remediate contaminated soil and
groundwater. In September 2009, a Phase I ESA was prepared for the project site by Andersen
Environmental. The intent of the Phase I ESA was to identify recognized environmental conditions
associated with the project site. A recognized environmental condition is defined as the presence or likely
presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property that indicate an existing release, a
past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into
structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property. In order to
identify environmental conditions at the project site, the Phase I ESA included a site inspection, interviews
with parties familiar with the property, historical research into the past uses of the property, and hazardous
materials research with regard to the project site, adjacent properties, and surrounding area.
Premiere Environmental Services, Inc. (now Earthcon) prepared a Supplemental Investigation Report for the
project site in February 4, 2009 to present results from soil and soil gas sampling conducted in October 2008.
The work was approved and overseen by the DTSC. The results of the investigations indicated that the
contamination at the site consisted of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), metals (arsenic, barium,
beryllium, chromium, lead, molybdenum, nickel, vanadium, and zinc), and trace amounts of volatile organic
compounds within the soil and tetrachloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethylene (TCE) and other hydrocarbons in
the soil gas.
Environ International Corporation prepared a Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) in August 2009
based on existing site conditions and data obtained during Premier Environmental’s 2008 investigation plus
metals data obtained during a 1996 Risk Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS). Calculations and modeling
was performed to evaluate health risks for potential receptors at the site, and the results indicated no
significant human health risks. However, 23.4 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) of arsenic was detected in
soil, which is above the Los Angeles County background level in one location. The HHRA concluded that
the arsenic was anomalous and insignificant to overall site risk. No further evaluation was recommended.
DTSC reviewed the HHRA and provided comments relative to assessing risk with respect to the use of the
project site as a college campus. Environ revised the HHRA and submitted it to DTSC for final review. On
September 3, 2009, DTSC issued a “No Further Action” letter deeming the project site suitable for
unrestricted use. Concurrent to the revision of the HHRA, approximately 5-cubic yards of soil were removed
from a small area where according to the DTSC PAHs exceeded human health screening levels. The action
was approved by the DTSC and is further basis for their closure letter.
Groundwater contamination was detected in groundwater wells on the project site during past investigations.
This contamination likely originated at the project site. The wells were sampled in 1994, 1997 and1999. 4
The Phase I ESA determined that the data is not current and would not likely represent current groundwater
4
Andersen Environmental, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, September 28, 2009.
taha 2012-090 4.6-6

conditions. 5 Earthcon sampled groundwater on the project site in late September 2012 and recommended a
continued semi-annual monitoring program. 6
Based upon the recognized environmental conditions identified in the Phase I ESA specific recommendations
related to additional sampling and investigations were identified. Per these recommendations, additional soil
vapor, soil sampling, and remedial actions were undertaken at the project site. 7 Soils containing elevated
arsenic concentrations were removed, and the excavation, cleaning, certification, removal, and disposal of
two 13,000-gallon USTs and associated product pipes, and contaminated material, including asbestos
containing materials (ACMs) was completed. 89
Although DTSC issued a “No Further Action” letter for the project site in 2009, in January 2013, LACCD
entered into a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement with the DTSC pursuant to the CHSC which authorized DTSC
to oversee the investigation and remediation of a release or threatened release of any hazardous substances at
or from the project site. 10
Asbestos and Lead-based Paint. Consistent with Federal regulations, asbestos and ACMs are presumed to
be present in all structures constructed prior to 1979. Asbestos was banned in the United States in 1979 and
is typically present in structures beyond 25 years of age. Asbestos was commonly used for acoustic
insulation, thermal insulation, and fire proofing. Asbestos fibers are incredibly strong and heat resistant.
Asbestos is often found in ceiling tiles, pipe insulation, floor tiles, and linoleum. When broken apart in
activities such as during demolition of structures, microscopic asbestos particles may become airborne and
pose a threat to human health. Inhalation of asbestos fibers can lead to various health problems, the most
serious of which include lung disease and cancer.
Leaded paint was primarily utilized from the 1920s through 1978. Structures are affected by lead-based
paint regulations if the paint is in a deteriorated condition or if remodeling, renovation or demolition
activities disturb lead-based paint surfaces.
In January 2013, a limited hazardous materials (asbestos, lead, Universal Waste Rule items, and refrigerants)
survey of Building 4 on the project site was conducted by GHD. According to the Hazards Materials Testing
Report prepared by GHD on January 19, 2013, the results of the survey indicated that there are ACMs,
asbestos containing construction materials (ACCMs), lead-based paints, refrigerants, and Universal Waste
Rule items within Building 4. 11
Hazardous Material Database Sites. Federal, State, local, tribal and proprietary environmental databases
were searched to determine the environmental regulatory status of the project site, adjoining facilities, and
facilities identified within the specified approximate minimum search distance of the site. Table 4.6-2
summarizes the databases reviewed and the approximate search distances, and indicates if the project site,
adjacent properties or surrounding sites are listed.
5
Ibid.
6
Earthcon, Groundwater Monitoring Report- September 2012, February 4, 2013.
7
Andersen Environmental, Environmental Sampling Report, September 20, 2010.
8
Andersen Environmental, Soil Removal and Exploratory Excavation Report, April 18, 2011.
9
Parsons, Draft Underground Storage Tank Closure and Soil Investigation Report, Former Firestone Rubber and Tire
Facility 2525 East Firestone Boulevard, South Gate California, February 13, 2013.
10
Department of Toxic Substances Control, Voluntary Cleanup Agreement with LACCD, Docket No. HAS VCA-12/13-
055, executed January 22, 2013.
11
GHD Inc., Hazardous Materials Testing Report for 2525 Firestone Boulevard, Building 4, January 19, 2013.
taha 2012-090 4.6-7

TABLE 4.6-2: REGULATORY DATABASE RESEARCH

Search Distance Project Site Adjacent Site Other Site
Database (Miles) (YES/NO) (YES/NO) (#)
Federal NPL 1.0 No No 0
Federal De-listed NPL 1.0 No No 0
Federal CERCLIS 0.5 Yes No 1
Federal CERCLIS NFRAP 0.5 No No 0
Federal RCRA CORRACTS 1.0 No No 1
Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD 0.5 No No 0
Federal RCRA Generators 0.25 Yes No 9
Federal Institutional/Engineering Controls 0.5 No No 0
Federal ERNS Project Site No No 0
State/Tribal Equivalent NPL 1.0 No No 3
State/Tribal Equivalent CERCLIS 0.5 No No 13
State/Tribal Landfill 0.5 No No 3
State/Tribal UST 0.25 No No 16
State/Tribal Leaking UST 0.5 No No 17
State/Tribal Institutional/Engineering Controls 0.5 No No 0
State/Tribal Voluntary Clean-up Sites 0.5 No No 2
State/Tribal Brownfield Sites 0.5 No No 0
SOURCE: Andersen Environmental, 2009.
The project site is listed on the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS), Facility Index System/Facility Registry System (FINDS), “Cortese” Hazardous
Waste and Substances Sites List (Cortese), Historical Calsites Database (HIST Cal-Sites), Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act Non-Generator (RCRA-NonGen), State Response Sites (Response), and
EnviroStor Database (Envirostor), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information Small Quantity
Generator (RCRA-SQG), Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) databases, Facility and Manifest
Data (HAZNET), and Los Angeles County Street Number List (LA County HMS) databases.
The project site was a generator of hazardous materials with an off-site waste receiver whose commercial
status was listed as unknown. Hazardous wastes including “waste oil and mixed oil,” contaminated soil from
site clean-ups,” “asbestos containing waste,” “organic solids with halogens,” “halogenated solvents
(chloroform, methyl chloride, perchloroethylene, etc.),” “aqueous solution with less than ten percent total
organic residues,” and “aqueous solution with metals (antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium,
chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, vanadium, and
zinc)” were disposed of by a recycler, disposal land fill, and treatment incineration. The hazardous wastes
disposal was likely associated with Firestone’s vacation of the site within 1980 and 1981.
Transport, Use, and Disposal. If improperly handled, hazardous materials can result in public health
hazards through human contact with contaminated soils or groundwater, or through airborne releases in
vapors, fumes, or dust. There is also the potential for accidental or unauthorized releases of hazardous
materials that would pose a public health concern. The transport, use, and disposal of any hazardous
materials and wastes are required to occur in accordance with federal, State and local regulations. In
accordance with such regulations, the transport of hazardous materials and wastes can only occur with
transporters who have received training and appropriate licensing. Additionally, hazardous waste
transporters are required to complete and carry a hazardous waste manifest. Nonetheless, accidents or spills
during transport of hazardous materials or wastes can expose the public and the environment to these
substances. Likewise, if contamination at a site remains undetected, workers and the public may be at risk of
exposure if precautions are not taken.
Schools
A potentially significant impact would occur if the release of hazardous materials from the proposed project
were to occur within one-quarter-mile of an existing or proposed school. There are four public and/or private
taha 2012-090 4.6-8

schools are located within 0.25 mile of the project site. Building 2 on the project site was formerly occupied
by the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) South Gate Community Adult School; however, the
school vacated the project site in 2012. The locations of existing schools are depicted in Figure 4.6-2.
Airport Hazards
A potentially significant impact would occur if the proposed project exposed persons residing or working in
the area to risks associated with the proximity of an airstrip. The project site is not within an airport land use
plan, or within two miles of an airport or airstrip. The nearest public airport or private airstrip, Long Beach
Municipal Airport, is located approximately ten miles to the south-southeast of the project site. Operations
on the project site are not affected by air traffic or other hazards from this airport.
Emergency Response Plans

The project site is located at the northwestern corner of the Firestone Boulevard/Santa Fe Avenue intersection.
Firestone Boulevard is a primary arterial that runs east-west through the City of South Gate. Santa Fe Avenue is
a minor arterial that runs north-south. Firestone Boulevard is a designated emergency evacuation route in the
City of South Gate. 12 In the event of an evacuation, there are several routes out of the City. The nearest freeway
access is the Firestone Boulevard/I-710 interchange located approximately three miles east.
Wildland Fires
A potentially significant impact would occur if the project exposed people and structures to high risk of
wildfire. The project site is located within a fully developed urban area, with no wildlands for several miles
in all directions.
impact related to hazards and hazardous materials if it would:
• Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal
of hazardous materials;
• Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment;
• Emit hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school;
• Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment;
• For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area;
• For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area;
• Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan; and/or
• Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands.
12
City of South Gate, SEMS Multihazard Functional Plan, March 1998.
taha 2012-090 4.6-9

RANDOLPH
ST
1
UNIO
SA
NT LIBERTY BL
N PA
AF VD
UN EA
IO VE
CIFIC
N
PA
C IFI
C
3
RAIL
RA
ILR
OA
ROA
D
D
MANCHESTER AVE
SANT
A FE
AVE
PROJECT SITE
FIRE
STO
NE B
LVD
2
ALAM
EDA S
LO
NG
CALD
T
BE
FIRESTONE
BLVD
AC
EN AV
HB
LV
E
D
GLENWOOD
4 PL
92ND ST SOUTHERN
AVE
ILLINOIS
AVE
LEGEND:
Project Site
# School
1. Redeemer Lutheran School
2. South Gate Education Center N
3. Liberty Boulevard Elementary School Approx.
Scale
4. Pilgrim Baptist School
0 625 1,250
taha 2012-090
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS WITHIN
ONE-QUARTER MILE OF THE PROJECT SITE
IMPACTS
CONSTRUCTION
Construction of the proposed project would result in the demolition of existing Building 4 and its
connections to Building 3. No other buildings would be removed or altered as a result of the proposed
project.
Hazardous Materials
The project site was a generator of hazardous materials when occupied by the Firestone Tire and Rubber
Plant. As a result, the project site is listed on a number of hazardous materials site, identified above.
Previous contamination of the project site led to the DTSC issuing an Imminent or Substantial Endangerment
Order and Remedial Action Order (the Order) in April 1994 that required the project site properly
investigated, a clean-up plan be prepared and submitted, and, contaminated soil and groundwater be
remediated. Since the DTSC issued their 1994 order, several environmental investigations have been
conducted on the project site under the guidance of the DTSC. These environmental investigations identified
recognized environmental conditions including soil and groundwater contamination, USTs, ACMs, and
LBPs that must be remediated at the project site.
Although DTSC issued a “No Further Action” letter on September 3, 2009 deeming the project site suitable
for unrestricted use based on the findings of the HHRA, additional investigations conducted per the
recommendations of the Phase I ESA prepared subsequent to the HHRA necessitated further action related to
the remediation of the project site. Specifically, soils containing elevated arsenic concentrations were
removed and appropriately disposed of, two 13,000-gallon USTs and associated product pipes were
excavated and removed, and contaminated materials and soils were disposed of. These activities have
eliminated recognized environmental conditions at the project site, with the exception of ACMs and LBPs
within Building 4, that have the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
during construction when release, transport, and disposal of such hazardous materials could occur. However,
the potential exists that contaminated soils not previously identified due to the presence of buildings and
asphalt could be encountered during construction of the proposed project. The investigation and remediation
of a release or threatened release of any hazardous substances at or from the project site in the future would
be overseen by the DTSC in accordance with the Voluntary Cleanup Agreement between DTSC and
LACCD, pursuant to the Health and Safety Code. 13
As described above, ACMs, lead-based paints, refrigerants, and Universal Waste Rule items occur within
Building 4. 14 Prior to activities that could disturb these materials, such as demolition, these materials must
be removed to avoid release into the environment, potentially creating a significant hazard to the public or the
environment. Asbestos and lead-based paint abatement measures would be required prior to demolition of
Building 4 to ensure the health and safety of construction workers and those in the surrounding community.
Construction of the proposed project would involve the temporary use of potentially hazardous materials,
including paints, adhesives, surface coatings, cleaning agents, fuels, and oils. However, construction
activities would comply with applicable regulations and would not expose persons to substantial risk
resulting from the release of hazardous materials or exposure to health hazards in excess of regulatory
standards. Similarly, while construction of the proposed project may include the transport of hazardous
materials to a permitted facility for treatment and/or disposal, the handling of hazardous materials and wastes
would occur in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions and handled in compliance with applicable
federal, State and local regulations. Compliance with existing standards and regulations would ensure that
13
Department of Toxic Substances Control, Voluntary Cleanup Agreement with LACCD, Docket No. HAS VCA-12/13-
055, executed January 22, 2013.
14
taha 2012-090 4.6-11

construction of the proposed project not create a significant hazard to the public or the environmental
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
In light of the unresolved issues concerning hazardous materials within Building 4, without mitigation, the
proposed project would result in a significant impact related to hazardous materials.
Schools
Four public and/or private schools are located within a quarter-mile of the project site. As described above,
contaminated soils have been removed from the project site, and asbestos and lead-based paint abatement
measures would be implemented prior to demolition of Building 4. Disposal and use of hazardous materials
during construction of the proposed project would be done in compliance with applicable regulations. In the
event that previously unidentified contaminated soils or other hazardous materials are encountered during
construction of the proposed project, associated remediation activities, which could include transporting
hazardous materials to a permitted facility for treatment and/or disposal, would occur in accordance with federal,
State and local regulations. These actions would ensure that the proposed project would not emit hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within one quarter mile of an existing or proposed school during construction.
Therefore, without mitigation, the proposed project would result in a significant impact related to schools.
Airport Hazards
The project site is not within an airport land use plan, or within two miles of an airport or airstrip. The
nearest public airport or private airstrip is Long Beach Municipal Airport, approximately ten miles to the
south-southeast. The project site is not affected by air traffic or other hazards from this airport. Therefore,
no impact related to airport hazards would occur.

The City of South Gate’s emergency response needs are served by the Los Angeles County Fire Department
(LACFD) and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD). Firestone Boulevard is a designated
emergency evacuation route in the City of South Gate. 15 Construction of the proposed project would require
street and sidewalk improvements and the construction of two new traffic signals on Firestone Boulevard and
Santa Fe Avenue. Although short-term, construction activities within the right-of-way could potentially
impact the use of Firestone Boulevard and Santa Fe Avenue during an emergency response or evacuation,
interfering with the implementation of the City’s emergency response plan. Coordination with the LACFD
and LASD regarding any lane closures, movement of heavy construction equipment, or any construction in,
or use of, the Firestone Boulevard and Santa Fe Avenue right-of-ways would reduce potential impacts to
emergency response plans. Therefore, without mitigation, the proposed project would result in a significant
impact related to emergency response plans.
Wildland Fires
As the project site is approximately 18 miles from the nearest wildlands, construction of the proposed project
would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.
Therefore, no impact related to wildland fires would occur.
OPERATIONS
Hazardous Materials
The proposed project would replace a former industrial land use that routinely used hazardous materials in
regular operations, with an educational land use that would not typically transport, use and dispose of
hazardous materials. Operations associated with the proposed project may handle small quantities of
chemical substances, such as chemical solvents and lubricants, and fertilizers, pesticide and herbicides for
15
taha 2012-090 4.6-12

landscape maintenance, and if the college offers chemistry classes, this may involve a variety of materials for
teaching and laboratory purposes. However, in general the operation of the proposed project would involve
very little, if any, use of petroleum products or hazardous materials, and these would be transported,
contained, and disposed of in accordance with applicable federal, State and local regulations. In addition, as
previously discussed, an HHRA was prepared for the project site to evaluate health risks for with respect to
the use of the project site as a college campus. The results indicated no significant human health risks, and
on September 3, 2009, DTSC issued a “No Further Action” letter deeming the project site suitable for
unrestricted use.
As discussed above, prior to construction of the proposed project, all ACM and lead-based paint would be
removed and disposed of in compliance with applicable federal and State regulations, and asbestos and lead-
based paint abatement mitigation measures have been included to ensure the health and safety of construction
workers and those in the surrounding community.
Compared to the previous uses on the project site, operation of the proposed project would not typically
involve the transport, use and disposal of hazardous materials, and would represent a significant reduction in
the amount and frequency of the use of hazardous materials. No industrial land uses or activities that would
result in the use or discharge of unregulated hazardous materials and/or substances are part of the proposed
project. Hazardous materials expected for occasional use during operation of the proposed project could
include limited quantities of lubricating products, paints, solvents, and custodial products, pesticides and
other landscaping supplies, and vehicle fuels, oils, and transmission fluids.
All hazardous materials would be contained, stored, and used in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions
and handled in compliance with applicable federal, State and local regulations. Any associated risk would be
adequately reduced through compliance with these standards and regulations. If there were a release of
hazardous materials related to the operation proposed project, the amount would be small and localized.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant related to hazardous materials.
Schools
Four public and/or private schools are located within a quarter-mile of the project site. As described above,
limited quantities of hazardous materials are expected for occasional use during operation of the proposed
project. Associated risk would be reduced through compliance with applicable standards and regulations.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant related to schools.
Airport Hazards
The project site is not within an airport land use plan, or within two miles of an airport or airstrip. The
nearest public airport or private airstrip, Long Beach Municipal Airport, is approximately ten miles to the
south-southeast of the project site. The project site is not affected by air traffic or other hazards from this
airport. Therefore, no impact related to airport hazards would occur.

Operation of the proposed project would not impair or interfere with any emergency response plans or
emergency evacuation plans. The proposed project would incorporate street improvements to manage the
traffic associated with the proposed project and implement additional improvements proposed in City of
South Gate General Plan 2035. Specifically, the proposed project would create a new entry to the project site
on Santa Fe Avenue across from Ardmore Avenue, enhance the existing entry on Firestone Boulevard, and
provide an additional secondary entry on Santa Fe Avenue across from Orchard Place for service and
fire/emergency access to the project site.
The new entry drive created off of Santa Fe Avenue would be signalized and would serve as the main vehicular
access point to and from the project parking structure. Two inbound travel lanes and two outbound travel lanes
are proposed to facilitate traffic flow along Santa Fe Avenue as well as to minimize any potential vehicle
taha 2012-090 4.6-13

queuing into and out of the proposed parking structure. Consistent with current practice and parking designs at
other LACCD parking structure facilities, the proposed parking structure access points would not be gate
controlled (i.e., free flow inbound and outbound movements are anticipated). Thus, with the two inbound lanes
proposed at this driveway, vehicular queuing back out onto Santa Fe Avenue towards the UPRR right-of-way
(i.e., north of the driveway) is not anticipated. The proposed traffic signal at this location would integrate
Orchard Place so as to provide adequate northbound left-turn storage on Santa Fe Avenue for entering FEC
motorists as well as allow for left-turn ingress and egress movements to/from Orchard Place.
The Firestone Boulevard driveway located along the north side of Firestone Boulevard, approximately
135 feet east of Calden Avenue is also proposed to be signalized and would provide vehicular access to serve
both the project site as well as the adjacent HON site. Two inbound travel lanes and two to three outbound
travel lanes are proposed at this driveway to facilitate traffic flow. As previously described, Firestone
Boulevard is a designated emergency evacuation route in the City of South Gate. 16 These improvements to
Firestone Boulevard would not interfere with emergency evacuation.
The locations of the two new traffic signals that are proposed at the intersection of the new and existing
driveways along both Firestone Boulevard and Santa Fe Avenue are shown on the illustrative site plan
presented in Figure 3-3 in the Project Description. Within the project site, vehicular circulation is held to the
campus perimeter. Fire truck access to within 150 feet of all building exterior walls would be provided via
the roadways used by other vehicles plus additional dedicated fire lanes. The proposed project would
incorporate the requirements of the LACFD and the LASD for emergency access. Therefore, impacts would
be less than significant related to emergency response plans.
Wildland Fires
As the project site is approximately 18 miles from the nearest wildlands, operation of the proposed project
would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.
Therefore, no impact related to wildland fires would occur.
MITIGATION MEASURES
CONSTRUCTION
No impacts related to airport hazards or wildland fires would occur. No mitigation measures are required.
Hazardous Materials
HM1 Should LACCD encounter any previously unidentified contaminants during construction, an action
plan shall be developed, approved by Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) as
appropriate, and implemented, prior to resuming construction activities in the contaminated area. As
needed, the investigation and remediation of a release or threatened release of any hazardous
substances at or from the project site can be overseen by the DTSC in accordance with the Voluntary
Cleanup Agreement between DTSC and LACCD.
HM2 Prior to the demolition of Building 4, asbestos containing materials shall be removed from Building
4 in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Limited Hazardous Materials Testing
Report dated January 19, 2013, and California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 8. Removal must be
conducted by a California Occupation Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA)-register and
State-licensed asbestos removal contractor. Abatement operations shall be performed under the
direct observation of a California Certified Asbestos Consultant or Certified Site Surveillance
Technician. For all abatement activities which involve the removal of at least 100 square feet of
16
taha 2012-090 4.6-14

hazardous materials, notifications must be made to the South Coast Air Quality Management and
Cal/OSHA, 10 days and 24 hours, respectively, prior to initiation of such activities.
HM3 Prior to the demolition of Building 4, lead based paint and other hazardous materials shall be
removed from Building 4 in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Limited
Hazardous Materials Testing Report dated January 19, 2013, and CCR Title 22. For all abatement
activities which involve the removal of at least 100 square feet of hazardous materials, notifications
must be made to Cal/OSHA 24 hours prior to initiation of such activities.
Schools
Mitigation Measures HM1 through HM3 would apply to this impact.

Mitigation Measures PS1 and PS2 in Section 4.11 Public Services would apply to this impact.
OPERATIONS
Impacts related to hazardous materials, schools, and emergency response plans would be less than
significant. No mitigation measures are required.
No impacts related to airport hazards and wildland fires would occur. No mitigation measures are required.

CONSTRUCTION
No impacts related to airport hazards or wildland fires would occur.
Hazardous Materials
Impacts related to hazardous materials were determined to be significant without mitigation. Implementation
of Mitigation Measures HM1 through HM3 would reduce the impacts to less than significant.
Schools
Impacts related to schools were determined to be significant without mitigation. Implementation of
Mitigation Measures HM1 through HM3 would reduce the impacts to less than significant.

Impacts related to emergency response plans were determined to be significant without mitigation.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures PS1 and PS2 in Section 4.11 Public Services would reduce the
impacts to less than significant.
OPERATIONS
No impacts related to airport hazards or wildland fires would occur.
Impacts related to hazardous materials, schools, and emergency response plans were determined to be less
than significant without mitigation.
taha 2012-090 4.6-15

2013 Firestone Education Center Master Plan 4.7 Hydrology & Water Quality
4.7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

This section provides an overview of hydrology and water quality conditions at the project site and evaluates
construction and operational impacts resulting from the proposed project. Topics addressed include surface
water and groundwater quality, groundwater, stormwater drainage, flooding, and seiches and tsunamis.
Federal
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act or CWA). The CWA was first enacted in 1948
to (1) restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters by
preventing point and non-point pollution sources; (2) provide assistance to publicly owned treatment works
for the improvement of wastewater treatment; and (3) maintain the integrity of wetlands. In 1972, the CWA
was amended to provide that the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States from any point (such
as discharge from an industrial facility) or non-point (surface and farmland water runoff) source is unlawful
unless the discharge is in compliance with a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit, described below. In November 1990, the USEPA published final regulations that established
stormwater permit application requirements for specified categories of industries. With subsequent
amendments, current regulations provide that discharges of stormwater to waters of the United States from
industrial activities and from construction activities that encompass one acre or more of soil disturbance are
effectively prohibited unless the discharge is in compliance with a NPDES permit. Federal regulations allow
two permitting options for stormwater discharges, individual permits and general permits. The USEPA has
delegated responsibility for implementation of portions of the CWA, including water quality control planning
and control programs to the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB). The SWRCB has elected to
adopt one statewide general permit for construction activity at this time. The General Construction Activities
Stormwater Permit (GCASP) applies to all stormwater discharges associated with construction activity,
except for those on tribal lands, those in the Lake Tahoe Hydrologic Unit, and those performed by the
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Currently, the GCASP requires all dischargers where
construction activity disturbs one acre or more to conduct the following:
• Develop and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which specifies Best
Management Practices (BMPs) that will prevent all construction pollutants from contacting stormwater
and with the intent of keeping all products of erosion from moving off-site into receiving waters;
• Eliminate or reduce non-stormwater discharges to storm sewer systems and other waters of the United
States; and
• Perform inspections of all BMPs.
Section 303(d) and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). Section 303(d) of the CWA bridges the
technology-based and water quality-based approaches for managing water quality. Section 303(d) requires
that states make a list of waters that are not attaining standards after the technology-based limits are put in
place. For waters on this list (and where the USEPA administrator deems they are appropriate), the states are
to develop TMDLs. TMDLs are established at the level necessary to implement applicable water quality
standards. A TMDL must account for all sources of pollutants that cause the water to be listed. Federal
regulations require that TMDLs, at a minimum, account for contributions from point sources and nonpoint
sources.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The goal of the NPDES is to improve the
quality of stormwater discharged to receiving waters to the “maximum extent practicable” through the use of
BMPs. The NPDES was established under the CWA to regulate point source discharges (a municipal or
industrial discharge at a specific location or pipe) and certain types of diffuse source dischargers. As defined
taha 2012-090 4.7-1

in the federal regulations, diffuse sources are generally exempt from federal NPDES permit program
requirements. Diffuse pollution sources originate over a wide area rather than from a definable point.
Diffuse pollution often enters receiving water in the form of surface runoff and is not conveyed by way of
pipelines or discrete conveyances. Urban stormwater runoff and construction site runoff, however, are
diffuse sources regulated under the NPDES permit program because they discharge to receiving waters at
discrete locations in a confined conveyance system. Sections 401 and 402 of the CWA contain general
requirements regarding NPDES permits. For point source discharges, each NPDES permit contains limits on
allowable concentrations and mass emissions of pollutants contained in the discharge. For diffuse source
discharges (e.g., municipal stormwater and construction runoff), the NPDES program establishes a
comprehensive stormwater quality program to manage urban stormwater and minimize pollution of the
environment to the maximum extent practicable. The NPDES program consists of (1) characterizing
receiving water quality, (2) identifying harmful constituents, (3) targeting potential sources of pollutants, and
(4) implementing a Comprehensive Stormwater Management Program. State implementation of the NPDES
program as it relates to the proposed project is discussed below under State and Regional regulations.
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). FIRMs are official maps of a community for which the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has determined to have both special hazard areas and risk
premium zones, as it relates to floods. In addition to identifying hazard areas and risk zones, FIRMs indicate
applicable insurance rates and the dates-effective of such rates. Operational management of federal FIRM-
related programs and services is conducted by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) of FEMA’s
Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration (FIMA) which aims to minimize the damage and loss of
property, facilities and structures resulting from floods, as well as other natural disasters.
State
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act was passed in
1969 and establishes the SWRCB as the managing agency for water rights, water quality control and the
implementation of CWA provisions state-wide. Under this Act, the nine California Regional Water Quality
Control Boards (RWQCBs) were established for the coordination of oversight on a regional scale. The
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act authorizes the SWRCB to adopt, review, and revise policies for
all waters of the state (including both surface and groundwaters) and directs the RWQCBs to develop
regional Basin Plans.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). At the State level, the SWRCB has responsibility for
the protection of water quality and implementing portions of the CWA. The SWRCB sets Statewide policies
and regulations for the implementation of water quality control programs mandated by federal and State
water quality statutes and regulations. The SWRCB delegates to the nine RWQCBs the responsibility for the
protection of water quality in each major drainage basin throughout the State. The Los Angeles Regional
Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB), discussed below, has jurisdiction over the coastal drainages
between Rincon Point (on the coast of western Ventura County) and the eastern Los Angeles County line.
NPDES General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit (GCASP). The SWRCB permits all regulated
construction activities under NPDES GCASP for stormwater discharges associated with construction activity
(Order No. 2009-009-DWQ [2009]). 1 This Order requires that, prior to beginning any construction activities,
the permit applicant must obtain coverage under the GCASP by preparing and submitting a Notice of Intent
(NOI) and appropriate fee to the SWRCB. Additionally, coverage would not occur until an adequate SWPPP
has been prepared.
1
California Environmental Protection Agency 2009-0009-DWQ Construction General Permit, available at: http://www
.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/constpermits.shtml
taha 2012-090 4.7-2

Construction activities subject to the NPDES GCASP include clearing, grading, and disturbances to the
ground, such as stockpiling or excavation, that result in soil disturbances of at least one acre of total land
area. Because construction of the proposed project would cumulatively disturb more than one acre, all
improvements and construction activities would be subject to these permit requirements.
A SWPPP specifies BMPs that will prevent construction pollutants from contacting stormwater with the
intent of keeping all products of erosion from moving off-site into receiving waters. A SWPPP has two major
objectives: (1) to help identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants that affect the quality of
stormwater discharges and (2) to describe and ensure the implementation of BMPs to reduce or eliminate
sediment and other pollutants in stormwater as well as non-stormwater discharges. The SWPPP must
include BMPs that address source control, and, if necessary, must also include BMPs that address specific
pollutant control. The SWPPP must include a description of (1) the site, (2) erosion and sediment controls,
(3) means of waste disposal, (4) implementation of approved local plans, (5) control of post-construction
sediment and erosion control measures and maintenance responsibilities, and (6) non-stormwater
management controls. Dischargers are also required to inspect their construction sites before and after
storms to identify stormwater discharge associated with construction activity and to identify and implement
controls where necessary.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). CDFG, through provisions of the State of California
Administrative Code, is empowered to issue agreements for any alteration of a river, stream, or lake where
fish or wildlife resources may adversely be affected. Streams and rivers are defined by the presence of a
channel bed and banks, and at least an intermittent flow of water. CDFG regulates wetland areas only to the
extent that those wetlands are part of a river, stream, or lake as defined by CDFG.
Local
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB). The LARWQCB is responsible for
protecting surface waters and groundwater from both point and diffuse sources of pollution within the Los
Angeles County region. The LARWQCB adopted the Water Quality Management Plan for the Los Angeles
Region (Basin Plan) on June 13, 1994. The Basin Plan establishes water quality standards and objectives in its
Basin Plan that protect beneficial uses of various waters. The Basin Plan water quality objectives are intended to
protect the public health and welfare, and maintain or enhance water quality in relation to the designated existing
and potential uses of the water. Beneficial uses of receiving waters include the Los Angeles River Estuary (Los
Angeles Harbor) to which the Southeast Los Angeles CPA discharges. The Basin Plan specifies both narrative
and numerical water quality objectives for these receiving waters in the County.
Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). On March 8, 2000, the SUSMP was approved
by the LARWQCB as part of the municipally-owned separate storm sewer systems (MS4) Permit in order to
address stormwater pollution from new construction and redevelopment projects. The SUSMP includes a list
of minimum BMPs that must be employed by such projects in order to infiltrate or treat stormwater runoff,
control peak flow discharge, and reduce the post-project discharge of pollutants from stormwater conveyance
systems. Based upon land use type, the SUSMP defines the types of practices which must be included and
issues that must be addressed as appropriate to the development type and size.
County of Los Angeles Hydrology Manual. Drainage and flood control within the project site is regulated
by the City of South Gate Public Works Department and the Los Angeles County Department of Public
Works. The County has jurisdiction over regional drainage facilities. The Los Angeles County Department
of Public Works’ Hydrology Manual requires that a storm drain conveyance system be designed for a 25-
year storm event and that the combined capacity of a storm drain and street flow system accommodate flow
from a 50-year storm event. 2 Areas with sump conditions are required to have a storm drain conveyance
system capable of conveying flow from a 50-year storm event. The County also limits the allowable
2
Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Hydrology Manual (January 2006) , available at: http://ladpw.org
/wrd/Publication/engineering/2006_Hydrology_Manual/2006%20Hydrology%20Manual-Divided.pdf, accessed August 27, 2012.
taha 2012-090 4.7-3

discharge into existing storm drain facilities based on the MS4 Permit and is enforced on all new
developments that discharge directly into the County’s storm drain system. Any proposed drainage
improvements of County owned storm drain facilities such as catch basins and storm drain lines requires the
approval/review from the County Flood Control District.
City of South Gate General Plan Public Facilities and Service Systems Element. The Public Facilities
and Public Service Systems Element of the City of South Gate General Plan provides policy guidance to
ensure that the provision of public facilities and services supports existing and new development in the City.
Specifically, the Public Facilities and Service Systems Element goal related to hydrology and water quality is
to, “Collect, store and dispose of stormwater in a way that is safe, sanitary, and environmentally acceptable.”
classroom facilities from local zoning regulations, applicable objectives and policies of the City’s General
Plan related to hydrology and water quality are identified in Table 4.7-1.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ELEMENT
Objective PF 7.1 Maintain stormwater collection infrastructure in good condition.
Policy P.1 Stormwater infrastructure will be maintained in good condition.
Policy P.2. The City should provide sufficient funds to maintain necessary stormwater infrastructure.
Policy P.3 The City’s stormwater infrastructure will comply with the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Act and all other legal and environmental requirements.
Objective PF 7.2 Encourage coordination between land use planning, site design and stormwater control.
Policy P.1 The City will comply with the Best Management Practices contained in the Los Angeles
County Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP).
Policy P.2 The City will seek to reduce the amount of stormwater that leaves the City, and will seek to
improve the quality of stormwater that does leave the City.
Policy P.3 Where feasible, new development projects should handle all stormwater on site. Exceptions
may be made where the design of such on-site stormwater facilities will have a negative
impact on the urban quality of the development.
Policy P.4 A watershed management approach should be used in addressing, planning and managing
stormwater issues.
Policy P.5 Existing property owners will be encouraged to reduce stormwater runoff by modifying their
properties and reducing impermeable surfaces.
Policy P.6 Parking lots should be paved with permeable materials, whenever possible.
South Gate Municipal Code (SGMC) Chapter 6.67. The purpose of SGMC Chapter 6.67 is to protect the
public health, welfare, and safety, and to reduce the quantity of pollutants being discharged to the waters of the
United States. SGMC Chapter 6.67 aims to obtain (1) the elimination of non-stormwater discharges to the MS4;
(2) the elimination of spillage, dumping and disposal of pollutants into the MS4; (3) the reduction of pollutants in
stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable; and (4) the protection and enhancement of the quality
of the waters of the United States in a manner consistent with the provisions of the CWA.
EXISTING SETTING
The approximately 18.5-acre project site is located at the northwest corner of the Firestone Boulevard/Santa Fe
Avenue intersection in the City of South Gate. The project site is currently developed with four buildings, and
paved truck yards, parking lots, and driveways. The project site and surrounding area is almost entirely covered
taha 2012-090 4.7-4

with impervious surfaces. The project site slopes slightly toward the south with a maximum surface elevation
difference of five feet and has an average elevation of approximately 129 feet above mean sea level (msl). 3
The project site is located within the Los Angeles Basin (Basin). The annual average temperature in the
vicinity of the City of South Gate is 62.1 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) with an average winter temperature of
approximately 55.7°F and an average summer temperature of approximately 68.0°F. 4 Total precipitation in
the project area averages approximately 13.5 inches annually. Precipitation occurs mostly during the winter
and relatively infrequently during the summer. Precipitation averages approximately eight inches during the
winter, approximately three inches during the spring, less than one inch during the summer, and
approximately two inches during the fall. 5
No wetlands or surface water resources occur on the project site or on adjacent properties. Major surface
water resources in the vicinity of the project site include the Compton Creek, located approximately two
miles southwest of the project site and the Los Angeles River and Rio Hondo Channel located approximately
three miles to the east of the project site.
Surface Water and Groundwater Quality

A number of factors affect surface and groundwater quality. These factors include, but are not limited to, the
types of land uses in a given area, hydrological conditions, meteorological conditions, geological conditions,
and soil types. Activities associated with the different types of land uses may affect surface water quality.
For example, an office building generates fewer exterior pollutants that can be washed away by surface water
runoff than a surface parking lot that has deposits of oil, gasoline, and other pollutants that may affect the
quality of surface water runoff. Similarly, meteorological conditions can influence the quantity and
concentration of pollutants that are washed away by surface water runoff through the frequency and intensity
of storm events. In addition, geological conditions, such as soil type and presence of geological features,
determine infiltration and runoff velocity and may affect surface water quality. Surface water runoff has less
potential to carry sediments and pollutant when runoff is slow (i.e., sheet flow over a relatively flat surface
versus sheet flow down a slope) and infiltrate the soil.
The project site is located within the Los Angeles-San Gabriel Hydrologic Unit of the Los Angeles River
Watershed. Groundwater within this unit is stored in basins underlying five major geographic areas. These
groundwater basins are separated by geologic features that impede groundwater movement or by municipal
boundaries. The project site is situated within the Central Basin. Groundwater conditions in the Central
Basin are generally characterized by shallow aquifers and deep aquifers. Groundwater contamination of the
shallow aquifer is widespread within the Central Basin and the project site is located in an area where
numerous leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) have been identified. 6 Groundwater contaminants are
primarily petroleum hydrocarbons and volatile aromatic compounds associated with the LUST sites, and
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as Trichloroethylene (TCE) and Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)
associated with releases from plating, dry cleaning, automobile repair, and other facilities. Groundwater has
been detected at two LUST sites within proximity of the project site. One is located southeast across the
street from the project site at 2702 Firestone Boulevard and the other is approximately 0.75 miles west of the
3
4
Western Regional Climate Center, Historical Climate Information, available at: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/CLIMATE
DATA.html, accessed December 17, 2012.
5
Ibid.
6
Ibid.
taha 2012-090 4.7-5

project site at 8627 Fir Avenue. 7 Therefore, perched and semi-perched aquifers may be present beneath the
project site. 8
Subsurface investigations performed on the project site indicate groundwater, soil, and soil vapor
contamination, including chlorinated solvents such as tetrachloroethylene (PCE) and trichloroethylene
(TCE), petroleum hydrocarbons, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, and several metals at elevated concentrations.
The responsible party has been identified as Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, and remediation and
cleanup activities are ongoing with the supervision of the lead agency, the California Department of Toxic
Substances Control (DTSC).
Groundwater
As described above, the project site is situated within the Central Basin, which has the largest groundwater
storage capacity of the five basins in the Los Angeles Coastal Plain. Groundwater is estimated to be
approximately 50 feet below ground surface in the project area. 9 However, historical high groundwater
depth in the project area is estimated to be less than ten-feet below ground surface. 10
The City of South Gate manages and operates groundwater wells, conduits, pipes, fire hydrants, and
reservoirs. Eleven of fourteen groundwater wells owned by the City are active and the other three are
standby wells. The 11 wells have a capacity to pump 32.96 million gallons per day (gpd) or 101.19 acre-feet
per day. 11 According to the City of South Gate 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, the City has annual
pumping rights of 11,183-acre-feet of water. 12 During the fiscal year ending on June 30, 2010, the City
pumped approximately 9,082 acre-feet of groundwater. 13,14 According to groundwater contour maps,
groundwater in the vicinity of the project site flows towards the southeast at an approximate gradient of
0.0001 percent. 15 The nearest active groundwater wells to the project site are located approximately 0.7 miles
directly south of the project site along Tweedy Boulevard. 16
Stormwater Drainage
The City of South Gate’s stormwater system is managed by the City of South Gates’s Public Works
Department and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. Most stormwater flows through
street curb and gutters to Los Angeles County Department of Public Works storm drains, but there are a
limited number of circular storm drains maintained by the City. The Los Angeles County Department of
Public Works stormwater drainage system generally collects water from streets, pipelines, and Caltrans storm
drains. Stormwater collected by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works stormwater drainage
system is conveyed south and east towards the City of Paramount and directly into the Los Angeles River or
south towards Lynwood, where the stormwater discharges into Compton Creek. Stormwater collected by the
Compton Creek is discharged into the Los Angeles River further downstream.
7
California State Water Resources Control Board, GeoTracker website available at: http://geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov/,
accessed January 31, 2011.
8
9
10
California Department of Water Resources, Coastal Plain of Los Angeles Groundwater Basin, Central Subbasin,
Available at: http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/groundwater/bulletin_118/basindescriptions/4-11.04.pdf, accessed January 31, 2011.
11
City of South Gate, South Gate General Plan 2035, December 2009.
12
An acre-foot of water is equal to one foot of water covering a surface area of one acre, or 325,851 gallons.
13
14
California Department of Water Resources – Southern Region, Watermaster Service in the Central Basin Los Angeles
County July 1, 2009-June 30, 2010, October 2010.
15
Geokinetics, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Santa Fe-Firestone L.L.C., Administration Building, 2525 Firestone
Boulevard, South Gate, California, April 9, 2002.
16
Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Ground Water Wells website, Available at:
http://dpwgis.co.la.ca.us/website/wells/viewer.asp, accessed January 13, 2011.
taha 2012-090 4.7-6

The project site is comprised entirely of impervious surfaces and thus, infiltration of stormwater into the
groundwater table is negligible. There are no natural stream courses on or near the project site. The nearest
surface water body is the concrete-lined Los Angeles River, located approximately three miles east of the
project site. All drainage for the project site and surrounding areas are part of the fully developed municipal
infrastructure. On-site drainage travels as sheet flow across the project site away from structures in a
southerly direction towards storm drains.
Flooding
Los Angeles County is subject to a wide range of flood hazards, including those caused by earthquakes,
intense storms, and failure of man-made structures. FEMA has prepared FIRM identifying areas in Los
Angeles County that would be subject to flooding during 100- and 500-year storm events. The FIRM for the
City of South Gate indicates the project site is outside the 100- and 500-year flood hazard area. 17 Levees
have been installed on either side of the Los Angeles River have been determined adequate to contain both
100- and 500-year storm events.
Seiches and Tsunamis

A seiche is a free-standing wave oscillation of the surface water in an enclosed or semi-enclosed basin such
as a lake, bay, or harbor. Tsunamis are usually caused by displacement of the ocean floor due to seismic
activity causing large waves. The project site does not have any lakes nearby, and it is located approximately
12 miles from the Pacific Ocean, not in the coastal zone.
impact related to hydrology and water quality if it would:
• Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements;
• Otherwise substantially degrade water quality;
• Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that
there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table;
• Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site;
• Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
• Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff;
• Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts;
• Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map;
• Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows;
• Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam; and/or
• Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving inundation by seiche,
tsunami, or mudflow.
17
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), City of South Gate, California,
Los Angeles County, Community Panel Number 060163 0005 A, July 6, 1998.
taha 2012-090 4.7-7

IMPACTS
CONSTRUCTION
Construction of the proposed project would occur on a site that has been previously developed and is entirely
impervious. Construction activities would be required to comply with NPDES, which requires the
application of BMPs. Grading, excavation, and other construction activities associated with the proposed
project could impact water quality as a result of the erosion of exposed soils that could be transported from
the project area in stormwater runoff. The proposed project also has the potential to generate short-term
water pollutants during construction, including sediment, trash, construction materials, and equipment fluids.
However, compliance with NPDES would ensure that these stormwater pollutants would not substantially
degrade water quality. Furthermore, given that construction of the proposed project involves disturbances to
the ground, the proposed project would be required to obtain coverage under the GCASP (which is not
effective until a corresponding SWPPP for the project is approved). The GCASP would further regulate
construction activities in order to prevent the violation of any water quality or waste discharge requirements.
Additionally, compliance with the County-wide MS4 Permit, which is required prior to issuance of the
GCASP, would ensure that the construction site develops a SWPPP and implements BMPs to reduce the
potential for construction-induced water pollutant impacts. The following BMPs include methods to prevent
construction-induced contaminates from entering the drainage system:
• Sediments generated on the project site shall be retained using adequate Treatment Control or Structural
BMPs;
• Construction-related materials, wastes, spills or residues shall be retained at the project site to avoid
discharge to streets, drainage facilities, receiving waters, or adjacent properties by wind or runoff;
• Non-storm water runoff from equipment and vehicle washing and any other activity shall be contained at
the project site; and
• Erosion from slopes and channels shall be controlled by implementing an effective combination of
BMPs, such as the limiting of grading scheduled during the wet season; inspecting graded areas during
rain events; planting and maintenance of vegetation on slopes; and covering erosion susceptible slopes.
Compliance with NPDES, obtainment of the GCASP and implementation of an approved SWPPP which
would identify specific BMPs, would ensure that water quality standards would not be violated. Therefore,
the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to surface water and groundwater
quality.
Groundwater
Construction activities such as dust control, concrete mixing, truck cleanout, and equipment cleaning require
the use of water. The use of water would occur incrementally throughout the construction of the proposed
project and be temporary in nature. The amount of water used during construction would vary with daily
conditions and activity. Overall, water usage for construction activities would be minimal, and construction
of the proposed project would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge. As a result, no net deficit in aquifer volume or lowering of the local groundwater table would
occur from construction of the proposed project. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would
result in less-than-significant impacts to groundwater resources.
Stormwater Drainage
Construction of the proposed project would include grading of the project site and would temporarily expose
on-site soils to surface water runoff. However, compliance with construction BMPs would eliminate soil
erosion and siltation, and grading activities would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
taha 2012-090 4.7-8

site or surrounding area. The grading plan for the proposed project would include specific measures to
ensure that the amount, composition, and rate of stormwater runoff would not result in erosion, siltation, or
flooding, on- or off-site. Furthermore, proposed project would be subject to the requirements of NPDES. As
a result, stormwater runoff contributed to drainage systems as a result of construction activities would not
exceed drainage capacities or require the construction or expansion of drainage facilities. Therefore, the
proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to stormwater drainage.
Flooding
Construction of the proposed project would occur on the project site which is located outside of a 100-year or
500-year flood hazard area. 18 In addition, the proposed project would not place housing or structures within
the flow of a 100-year flood event, and would not expose people or structures to significant risks associated
with flooding, including the failure of a levee or dam. Therefore, no impact related to flooding would occur.

Construction of the proposed project would occur on the project site which is located approximately 12 miles
from the Pacific Ocean and does not fall within a tsunami inundation area. Additionally, the project site does
not contain, or reside in proximity to, any large bodies of surface water which would be susceptible to
seiches or tsunamis. As a result, construction of the proposed project would not expose people or structures
to significant risks associated with inundation by seiche or tsunami. Therefore, no impacts related to a seiche
or tsunami would occur.
OPERATIONS
Operation of the proposed project would occur on a site that has been previously developed and is entirely
impervious. The proposed project would include an open space component that would increase the amount
of pervious surface area at the project site. This increase in pervious surfaces would increase infiltration of
stormwater at the project site and therefore, reduce the amount of stormwater runoff currently leaving the
project site. Further, the LACCD has mandated that no stormwater shall leave the campus property; instead
it will be collected and stored for re-use or infiltration on-site. 19 Accordingly, stormwater derived at the
project site would not enter the City’s storm drain system and the project site would not be a source of
polluted runoff. Compliance with this mandate and NPDES requirements would reduce or eliminate surface
water pollution off-site and ensure that the proposed project does not violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements, or otherwise degrade water quality. Therefore, the proposed project would
result in less-than-significant impacts related to surface water and groundwater quality.
Groundwater
The proposed FEC would accommodate up to 9,000 students. Operation of the proposed project would use
water supplied by the City of South Gate via local groundwater wells. As a result, the proposed project
would indirectly withdraw groundwater. As discussed Section 4.13 Utilities and Service Systems, operation
of the proposed FEC would increase water demand from the City’s water system. However, the proposed
project’s water usage is not anticipated to exceed the City’s estimated available water supplies based on the
City’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. The proposed project would include water-efficient design
elements such as low-flow plumbing fixtures (i.e., faucets, toilets, urinals, and shower heads) to reduce
potable water usage. Additionally, the proposed project would include an open space component that would
increase the amount of pervious surface at the project site, allowing for greater groundwater recharge.
18
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), City of South Gate, California,
Los Angeles County, Community Panel Number 060163 0005 A, July 6, 1998.
19
Firestone Education Center Master Plan Appendix, Civil Report, January 2011.
taha 2012-090 4.7-9

Further, the Central Basin Watermaster of the Department of Water Resources monitors groundwater supply
and establishes maximum pumping limits for the City. This practice ensures the preservation of groundwater
supplies. Accordingly, the proposed project would not deplete groundwater supplies nor would it interfere
with groundwater recharge. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts
related to groundwater.
Stormwater Drainage
As described above, the existing project site is comprised entirely of impervious surfaces and no streams or
other surface water bodies exist on the project site. As a result, no water infiltration currently occurs at the
project site and all stormwater drains via sheet flow into the City of South Gate’s storm drain system. With
implementation of the proposed project, the existing drainage pattern on the project site would be altered.
Specifically, the proposed open space component would increase the amount of pervious surface area on the
project site, increasing infiltration and reducing the amount of stormwater runoff that would typically leave
the project site. Further, the proposed project would be required to comply with the LACCD mandate that no
stormwater shall leave the campus property; instead it will be collected and stored for re-use or infiltration
on-site. 20 Although the proposed project would result in the alteration of the existing drainage pattern on the
project site, this alteration would not result in substantial erosion on- or off-site, nor would it increase the rate
or amount of surface run off in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site, as no stormwater would
leave the FEC campus. For this same reason, the proposed project would not create or contribute runoff
water that would exceed capacity of stormwater drainage systems, provide additional sources of polluted
runoff, or necessitate the construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage systems. Therefore, the
proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to stormwater drainage.
Flooding
Operation of the proposed project would occur on a site that is located outside of a 100- and 500-year flood
hazard area, as indicated by the FIRM for the City of South Gate. Therefore, no impact related to flooding
and inundation would occur.

Operation of the proposed project would occur on a site that is located approximately 12 miles from the
Pacific Ocean and does not fall within a tsunami inundation area. 21 Additionally, the project site does not
contain, or reside in proximity to, any large bodies of surface water which would be susceptible to seiches or
tsunamis. Therefore, no impact related to a seiche or tsunami would occur.
MITIGATION MEASURES
CONSTRUCTION
Impacts related to surface water and groundwater quality, groundwater, stormwater drainage, flooding, and
seiches and tsunamis would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
OPERATIONS
seiches and tsunamis would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
20
Firestone Education Center Master Plan Appendix, Civil Report, January 2011.
21
California Department of Conservation, Los Angeles County Tsunami Inundation Map, available at: http://www.con
servation.ca.gov/cgs/geologic_hazards/Tsunami/Inundation_Maps/LosAngeles/Pages/LosAngeles.aspx, accessed January 2, 2013
taha 2012-090 4.7-10


CONSTRUCTION
seiches and tsunamis were determined to be less than significant without mitigation.
OPERATIONS
seiches and tsunamis were determined to be less than significant without mitigation.
taha 2012-090 4.7-11

2013 Firestone Education Center Master Plan 4.8 Land Use & Planning
4.8 LAND USE AND PLANNING

This section provides an overview of City and/or regional land use plans and polices, and evaluates the
construction and operational impacts associated with the proposed project. Topics addressed include land
use compatibility, land use consistency, parking and habitat conservation plans.
Federal
Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs). HCPs, designated under Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered
Species Act, are federal planning documents required when a project will affect a species identified as listed,
non-listed, or eligible under the Endangered Species Act. An HCP details how project impacts upon affected
species would be minimized, or mitigated, and how the HCP is to be funded. Currently, no animal species
protected by the Endangered Species Act have been identified on the project site, and, thus, there are no
applicable HCPs.
State
California Government Code (CGC) Section 53094. CGC Section 53094 allows the governing board of a
school district that has complied with the requirements of CGC Section 65352.2 and Public Resources Code
(PRC) Section 21151.2, by two thirds vote of its members, may render a city or county zoning ordinance
inapplicable to a proposed use of property by the school district. However, the school district may not take
this action when the proposed use of the property by the school district is for non-classroom facilities. The
city or county concerned is required by notified within 10 days of this action. CGC Section 65352.2 is aimed
at fostering improved communication and coordination between cities, counties, and school districts related
to planning for school siting. PRC Section 21151.2 promotes the safety of pupils and comprehensive
community planning by requiring the governing board of each school district to notify the planning
commission of the jurisdiction before acquiring title to property for a new school site or for an addition to a
present school site.
Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP). NCCP programs of the California Department of
Fish and Game take a broad-based ecosystem approach to planning for the protection and perpetuation of
biological diversity at the State level. 1 The primary objective of NCCPs is to conserve natural communities
while accommodating compatible land use. Currently, there are no NCCPs for the project site.
Regional
Regional plans that provide general policies and guidance for growth and development in the project area
include the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP),
Growth Vision Report, and Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP). These regional plans and associated
regulatory documents are further discussed below.
Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). SCAG’s 2012-2035

RTP/SCS, adopted in April 2012, presents a long-term transportation vision through the year 2035 for the
SCAG region. Specific issues addressed within the RTP/SCS include mobility, sustainability, air quality,
climate change, energy, transportation financing, security and safety, environmental justice and mitigation,
revenues and expenditures, transportation conformity, implementation and monitoring, corridor preservation,
and future connections and growth. The RTP/SCS provides a basic policy and program framework for long-
1
California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Community Planning Program, available at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/
habcon/nccp/, accessed January 13, 2011.
taha 2012-090 4.8-1

term investment in the regional transportation system in a coordinated, cooperative, and continuous manner.
Transportation investments in the SCAG region that receive State or federal transportation funds must be
consistent with the RTP/SCS and must be included in their Regional Transportation Improvement Plan when
ready for funding. The RTP/SCS also includes population, housing, and employment forecasts that provide
advisory information to local jurisdictions for use in planning activities.
Growth Vision Report. In an effort to maintain the region’s prosperity, continue to expand its economy,
house its residents affordably, and protect its environmental setting as a whole, SCAG has collaborated with
interdependent sub-regions, counties, cities, communities, and neighborhoods in a process referred to by
SCAG as Southern California Compass (Compass). This inter-jurisdiction collaboration resulted in the
development of a shared Growth Vision Report for Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San
Bernardino and Ventura Counties. The underlying goal of the growth visioning effort is to make the SCAG
region a better place to live, work, and play for all residents regardless of race, ethnicity, or income. To
organize the strategies for improving the quality of life in the SCAG region, a series of principles was
established by the Growth Vision Subcommittee. These principles are contained in the Growth Vision
Report. The four principles are intended to promote and maximize regional mobility, livability, prosperity,
and sustainability. Decisions regarding growth, transportation, land use, and economic development should
support and be guided by these principles. Specific policy and planning strategies also are provided as a way
to achieve each of the principles. 2
Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP). The 2008 RCP is an advisory document that describes future
conditions in the region if current trends continue, defines a vision for a healthier region, and recommends an
Action Plan with a target year of 2035. The RCP may be voluntarily used by local jurisdictions in
developing local plans and addressing local issues of regional significance. This plan incorporates principles
and goals of the Growth Vision Report and includes nine chapters addressing land use and housing,
transportation, air quality, energy, open space, water, solid waste, economy, and security and emergency
preparedness. The action plans contained therein provide a series of recommended near-term policies that
developers and key stakeholders should consider for implementation, as well as potential policies for
consideration by local jurisdictions and agencies when conducting project review.
Local
City of South Gate General Plan Community Design Element. The Community Design Element of the
General Plan provides goals, objectives, policies, and implementation strategies for community design,
which include land use, urban design, and the characteristics that give the City its unique image and identity.
The Community Design Element meets State mandated requirements for a land use element by designating
the general location, distribution, and the extent of various land uses, and clearly identifying standards for
population density and development intensities for the City.
The Community Design Element takes a unique approach to land use by organizing the City into
neighborhoods, districts, and corridors. This approach identifies land uses and densities according to these
differing corridors and districts as opposed to the traditional parcel approach. In addition to identifying land
uses and densities, this approach also defines the character and form of these corridors and districts. Each
corridor and district includes a policy guidance that includes a statement of existing conditions, a vision
statement, allowable place types, and specific policies to help achieve the vision for the area. Place types
include a land use type and density designation, as well as a priority ranking from highly desired to
discouraged. The place type designations consist of policy and design guidance that addresses the form and
character of future development. Corridors or districts may contain more than one place type to allow for a
greater mixing of uses and flexibility in achieving City objectives. The project site is located in Subarea 1 of
the South Gate College District (SGCD). As shown in Figure 4.8-1, the general plan land use designation of
the project site is Mixed Commercial/Industrial.
2
Southern California Association of Governments, Southern California Compass Blueprint, Opportunity Area Maps, City
of Los Angeles-South Area, available at: http://www.compassblueprint.org/files/la-south.pdf, accessed January 12, 2011.
taha 2012-090 4.8-2

UPPR
ROW
UP
WALNUT PARK
RP
(LOS ANGELES COUNTY)
RO
W
ALAM
EDA S
T
LO
NG
BE
PROJECT
JUNIPER ST
AC
SANT
H
SITE
BL
A FE
VD
FIRE
STON
E BL
VD
AVE
FLORENCE-FIRESTONE CITY OF SOUTH GATE

GLENWOOD
PL
SOUTHERN
92ND ST AVE
LEGEND: Project Site City of South Gate Boundary
City of South Gate Land Use Los Angeles County Land Use
Low Density Residential Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential Low/Medium Density Residential
Mixed Commercial/Industrial Major Commercial

Major Industrial
Public and Semi-Public Facilities
N
Transportation Corridor Approx.
Scale
Neighborhood Revitalization
0 355 710
SOURCE: SCAG 2008 and TAHA, 2013. Feet
taha 2012-090
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
The Community Design Element has a vision for the SGCD to become a diverse, dense, and vibrant area that
contains a wide array of facilities such as classrooms, a library, public meeting spaces, parks and plazas,
cultural facilities and a hub for emerging green technology firms. Supporting retail and services, including
restaurants, are proposed along the Firestone Boulevard and Santa Fe Avenue frontages. 3 Allowable place
types for Subarea 1 of the SGCD include civic/institutional and open space as being “Highly Desired” and
Office/R&D, and Light Industrial/Flex as being “Desired.”
While CGC Section 53094 includes provisions for school districts to exempt classroom facilities from local
zoning regulations, applicable objectives and policies of the City’s General Plan related to land use are
identified in Table 4.8-1.
TABLE 4.8-1: APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RELATED TO LAND USE
AND PLANNING
Objective CD 2.1 Establish a clearly defined urban form and structure to the City consisting of “Neighborhoods,”
“Districts,” and “Corridors” in order to enhance the area’s identity and livability.
Policy P.1 New development and redevelopment will be encouraged to advance a unified and coherent
pattern of development, maximize the use of land and fill gaps in the urban environment.
Objective CD 2.5 Ensure that public and institutional uses, such as government and administrative offices,
recreation facilities, senior and youth centers and educational uses adequately support
existing and future populations.
Policy P.2 New public uses will be allowed and encouraged in identified Neighborhood, Districts and
Corridors.
Policy P.4 Public buildings and sites will be designed to be compatible in scale, mass, and character
with the vision for the specific Neighborhood, District, or Corridor.
Objective CD 3.2 Minimize the impact of parking on the pedestrian environment and residential
neighborhoods.
Policy P.1 Parking lots for new buildings should be located behind or on the side of buildings to reduce
their visual impact.
Policy P.2 Large parking lots should be sited to avoid potential impacts to adjacent residential areas or
buffered from the residential uses.
Policy P.3 Parking lots for new buildings that front a sidewalk should include landscaping between the
parking lot and the sidewalk.
Objective CD 6.1 Create a series of distinct Districts throughout the City, each with its own character, identity
and mix of uses.
Policy P.3 The following Districts will contain a mix of uses with a significant amount of new multi-family
residential development:
• South Gate College
• Gateway (Subarea 2)
• Imperial District (Subareas 1 and 2)
• Firestone Industrial
Objective CD 6.2 Design landscaping, buildings, and sites to enhance the pedestrian environment and
enhance the urban character of the City’s Districts.
Policy P.1 New development in Districts will be designed and developed to achieve a high level of
quality and distinctive character and architecture.
Policy P.2 Publicly-accessible parks and open space will be required in new projects of 5 acres or
more in any District.
3
Southern California Association of Governments, Southern California Compass Blueprint, Opportunity Area Maps, City
of Los Angeles-South Area, available at: http://www.compassblueprint.org/files/la-south.pdf, accessed January 12, 2011.
taha 2012-090 4.8-4

TABLE 4.8-1: APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RELATED TO LAND USE
AND PLANNING
Policy P.3 With the possible exception of some manufacturing and distribution uses, new buildings and
substantial remodels in Districts will be sited and designed to enhance pedestrian activity
along sidewalks, including but not limited to:
• Providing maximum window exposure and minimizing “blank wall” exposure to the
sidewalk and street.
• Integrating sidewalks, plazas and other amenities that contribute to pedestrian-oriented
activities.
• Incorporating uses in the first floor along the street frontage that stimulate pedestrian
activity.
• Siting the linear frontage of the building along or near the front property line and near the
sidewalk to maintain a no-setback or minimal-setback building that runs along the
sidewalk or property line in a “building wall” design, which is more pleasant and
accessible for pedestrians.
• Incorporating landscaping that visually distinguishes the site or structure.
• Incorporating building articulation of the façade and the use of multiple building volumes
and planes.
• Using rooflines and height variations to break up the massing and provide visual interest.
• Providing distinct treatment of building entrances.
• Limiting the street wall height to no more than 50 feet. Floors above 50 feet should be
set back from the street wall to preserve light and air.
Policy P.4 Buildings adjacent to lower scale residential development should step down toward the
residential uses or provide other buffering techniques.
Objective CD 8.4 Reduce the impact of Manufacturing/Distribution and Light Industrial/Flex businesses on
adjoining land uses.
Policy P.1 Neighborhoods should be protected from incompatible non-residential uses and disruptive
traffic and other noise generating uses to the greatest extent feasible.
SGCD Policy P.1 The former Firestone Tire factory should be rehabilitated and adaptively reused for the
creation of a public/private research and development hub specializing in emerging green
technology that supports the East Los Angeles Community College’s “green workforce”
training programs.
SGCD Policy P.2 The City will work with the East Los Angeles Community College and Los Angeles
Community College District to develop a Specific Plan or Precise Plan for the South Gate
College District. The plan should identify specific information on the location of uses, the
needs of the Community College District and the needs of the City and the community.
SGCD Policy P.3 The City will work with the East Los Angeles Community College, Los Angeles Community
College District and others to pursue a public/private partnership for the creation of a green
technology center that is associated with East Los Angeles Community College.
SGCD Policy P.4 All of the East Los Angeles Community College facilities are encouraged to be constructed
as green buildings.
SGCD Policy P.6 Industrial and manufacturing uses should remain in the area but could be phased out as the
college district expands.
SGCD Policy P.7 New uses that serve, and are used by, both the community college and the residents of
South Gate should be included in the area. This includes a library, community meeting
space, theaters, parks and plazas.
SGCD Policy P.8 Retail uses should be located in the ground floor of all buildings along Firestone and Santa
Fe; restaurants and cafés with outdoor seating are also encouraged.
SGCD Policy P.9 To the extent feasible, the existing Firestone Tire factory building should be adaptively
reused and the building façade preserved.
Note: SGCD – South Gate College District
taha 2012-090 4.8-5

City of South Gate Comprehensive Zoning Code (CZC). Title 11 of the SGMC contains the CZC. The
CZC serves as the primary implementation tool of the General Plan. The General Plan is a policy document
that sets forth direction for development decisions and the CZC is a regulatory ordinance that establishes
specific standards for the use and development of all properties in the City. The CZC regulates development
intensity using a variety of methods, such as setting limits on building setbacks, yard landscaping standards,
and building heights. The CZC also indicates which land uses are permitted in the various zones. As shown
in Figure 4.8-2, the zoning designation for the project site is Heavy Manufacturing (M-3). The Heavy
Manufacturing (M-3) zoning designation allows for high-intensity manufacturing uses, as well as lower-
intensity manufacturing uses categorized under the light manufacturing (M-2) and commercial
manufacturing (C-M) zoning designations. Institutional land uses are permitted under all three of these
industrial zoning designations.
Following the adoption of the General Plan in 2009 the City began a City-wide update of the CZC to reflect
the vision, goals, objectives, and policies and development intensities established within the General Plan.
The purpose of the CZC update is to ensure that it is consistent with the General Plan; specifically by:
• Developing a form-based code for parts of the City;
• Developing incentives to ensure that the “Highly Desired” Place Types occur in each area and/or a
disincentive to limit the “Discouraged” Place Types;
• Allowing existing uses to remain even though they are inconsistent with the City’s long-term vision for a
particular Neighborhood, District or Corridor; and
• Addressing development review regulations for different types of projects.
While the CZO update is in the process of being completed, zoning of the project site remains Heavy
Manufacturing (M-3). Nonetheless, as discussed above, CGC Section 53094 includes provisions for school
districts to exempt classroom facilities from local zoning regulations.
EXISTING SETTING
Project Site
The 18.5-acre project site is located at the northwest corner of the Firestone Boulevard/Santa Fe Avenue
intersection in the City of South Gate. The City’s General Plan designates the project site Mixed
Commercial/Industrial, and the site is zoned Heavy Manufacturing (M-3). According to the General Plan,
the project site is part of Subarea 1 of the SGCD, which states that civic/institutional and open space uses are
highly desirable.
The project site is currently developed with four buildings and surface parking. Building 1, the largest
building on the project site, fronts Firestone Boulevard. Building 2 is located at the southeast corner of the
project site at the Firestone Boulevard/Santa Fe Avenue intersection. Building 3 is located immediately
north of Building 1, and its eastern façade faces Santa Fe Avenue. Building 4 is located at the northeast
corner of the project site at the Santa Fe Avenue/Ardmore Avenue intersection. Building 4 was constructed
later than the other buildings on-site, and has a different architectural style than the other three buildings.
The project site contains minimal landscaping, which consists of solely of ornamental trees and shrubs along
Firestone Boulevard and Santa Fe Avenue. Surface parking is provided in front and to the west of
Building 1, surrounding Building 2, and to north of Building 3. The project site has four driveways. Two
driveways provide access to Building 2; one on Santa Fe Avenue and the other on Firestone Boulevard. A
third driveway provides access to the Building 3 from Santa Fe Avenue. The fourth driveway is located on
the north side of Firestone Boulevard. This driveway provides shared access to the project site and the
adjacent HON site to the west. Figure 3-3 in Chapter 3.0 Project Description depicts existing development
on the project site. Photographs of the four buildings on the project site are provided in Section 4.1
Aesthetics.
taha 2012-090 4.8-6

R3 CM
R2 M2 CM R3
M2 R4
WALNUT PARK R3
C3
UPPR
R3
R4
C3
ROW
R3 R4
M2
C3
UP
M2
P
R
RO
R3
W
C3
R3 C3
M2
M3
C3 M1 R3
R3 CM
M1 CM
ALAM
C3
R3
EDA S
C3 CM
M1
T
R2 M1 CM
M3
R3 CM
R3
R3
PROJECT
JUNIPER ST
CM
LO
M1
NG
R2 SITE
BE
FIRE CM
M2
AC
R2 STON
E BL R3
HB
M3 VD
M3
CM
SANT
LVD
CM
FLORENCE-FIRESTONE CM
R4 CM R3
A FE
(LOS ANGELES COUNTY) R3
R3
R3 CM
AVE
R3
CM CM R3
M2 R3 CM
M1 R3
M2 R3 CM
R3 CM
M3 R3 R1 R1
M2 R1 R3
R3
R1
R3
M1 M2
R1 CITY OF SOUTH GATE
R3
R3
SOUTHERN
92ND ST AVE R3
M1 M1 M1 M1
M2 R3
R3 R3 R3 R3 R3
LEGEND:
Project Site City of South Gate Boundary
C3 General Commercial
CM Commercial Manufacturing
M1 Light Manufacturing
M2, M3 Heavy Manufacturing
R2 Two-Family Residential N
Approx.
R3 Multiple Residential Scale
R4 Restricted Service Zone
0 264 528
taha 2012-090
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report ZONING DESIGNATIONS
Surrounding Land Uses

The project site is bounded on the north by the UPRR right-of-way, on the east by Santa Fe Avenue, on the
south by Firestone Boulevard, and on the west by HON site. Firestone Boulevard is the major arterial
serving the project site that connects to the Harbor Freeway (I-110) and the Long Beach Freeway (I-710).
Santa Fe Avenue is a secondary arterial, but serves as a regional major street. Heavy vehicular traffic, freight
railroad lines, the Alameda Corridor, and older residential areas encircle the project site and surrounding
area. Most structures in the surrounding area of the project site are at least 25 years old, with the exception
of properties that have been recently redeveloped as chain commercial businesses. The land uses
surrounding the project site are shown in Figure 4.8-3.
Residential land uses are located immediately north of the adjacent UPRR right-of-way. These residential land
uses extend north for approximately two miles to Slauson Avenue. The UPRR serves as a barrier between
these residential uses and the project site. Three city blocks of residential uses are located east of the project
site along Santa Fe Avenue, between the UPRR right-of-way and Firestone Boulevard. The block located at
the southeast corner of Santa Fe and Ardmore Avenues contains a water tower of approximately 130 feet in
height. The block between Orchard and Laurel Places consists of commercial businesses including a discount
store, a restaurant, and other similar commercial uses. The block between Laurel Place and Firestone
Boulevard includes a shopping plaza at the northeast corner of Santa Fe Avenue/Firestone Boulevard
intersection. This shopping plaza is a commercial strip mall that includes a discount store, a fast food
restaurant, a beauty salon, coin laundry, a dentist’s office, and a surface parking area. Extending further east
beyond the commercial strip mall are multi-family residences and additional commercial uses, including a
motel. A gas station is located at the southeast corner of the Santa Fe Avenue/Firestone Boulevard intersection.
There are four city blocks located immediately south of the project site from Santa Fe Avenue to the
Alameda Corridor. The first block, between Tope and Santa Fe Avenues, contains a commercial strip mall
that includes a donut shop, coin laundry facility, and dry cleaners. The following three blocks between Tope
and Calden Avenues contain automotive-related commercial uses, including a repair shop, an automotive
sound shop, a car wash, an automotive window tinting and detailing shop, a used car dealership, and an
engine and transmission repair shop. Further south of these commercial uses is a single-family residential
neighborhood. The existing SGEC is located at the southwest corner of the Firestone Boulevard and Calden
Avenue intersection, just west of the single-family residential neighborhood.
The HON site is located immediately west of the project site. A 35-foot wide shared driveway separates the
project site from the HON site and serves as an ingress and egress point for both properties. The HON site
consists of five one- to two-story buildings and surface parking. The HON site was most recently utilized as
a furniture manufacturing facility. However, the buildings on both the HON site and the project site
comprise the former Firestone Tire and Rubber Plant. Further west of the HON site, across the Alameda
Corridor between Firestone Boulevard and 85th Street are commercial uses which include a McDonald’s
drive-thru restaurant and several industrial auto-related businesses. Residential uses are located further west
of these commercial uses. A large heavy industrial use is located northwest of the HON site, east of the
Alameda Corridor and south of the UPPR tracks.
impact related to land use and planning if it would:
• Physically divide an established community;
• Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect; and/or
• Conflict with any applicable Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan.
taha 2012-090 4.8-8

WALNUT PARK
UPPR
ROW
UP
WALNUT PARK
RP
RO
W
ALAM
EDA S
T
LO
NG
BE
PROJECT
JUNIPER ST
AC
SANT
H
SITE
BL
A FE
VD
FIRE
STON
E BL
VD
AVE
FLORENCE-FIRESTONE CITY OF SOUTH GATE

GLENWOOD
PL
SOUTHERN
92ND ST AVE
LEGEND: Project Site City of South Gate Boundary
Low Density Residential Public Facilities

Medium Density Residential Parks/Open Space
Retail/Commercial/Office Vacant Land
N
Educational Institutions Transportation and Utility Approx.
Facilities Scale
Industrial
0 355 710
taha 2012-090
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report EXISTING LAND USES
IMPACTS
CONSTRUCTION
No impacts related to land use and planning would occur. Therefore, no further discussion of construction
impacts is necessary.
OPERATIONS
Land Use Compatibility
While the buildings on the project site are partially being used for storage, the project site has historically
contained industrial uses that have resulted in incompatible land use issues related to air quality, noise, and
odors associated with various industrial processes that are problematic to surrounding residences. However,
the City of South Gate’s vision for the project area according to the General Plan, is to transition it into a
dense and vibrant institutional area. The proposed project, which would introduce a new LACCD satellite
campus to replace the existing SGEC, would comply with the General Plan’s vision and could serve as an
anchor to the revitalization of the surrounding community and future development. However, California
Government Code Section 53094 includes provisions for school districts to exempt classroom facilities from
local zoning regulations.
The existing buildings on the project site are primarily industrial and largely inaccessible to the surrounding
community. The UPRR right-of-way acts as a barrier between the residential community to the north and the
project site. The residences are also separated by a fence and are oriented away from the project site.
Therefore, the proposed project would not introduce any new boundaries or divisions into the community.
On the contrary, the proposed project would enhance the pedestrian accessibility of the project site, and
provide a new area for community members to gather, work, and learn. The proposed project would result in
a land use that is compatible with the surrounding residences and community scale commercial development
that front Santa Fe Avenue and Firestone Boulevard.
The project site is part of the California Register-eligible South Gate Historic District. The South Gate
Historic District encompasses the project site and the adjacent HON site to the west. Buildings 1, 2, and 3,
which would be retained, are individually eligible for listing in the California Register. However,
Building 4, which would be demolished and replaced with a new building and parking structure, was
determined not to be individually eligible for the California Register. Retaining Buildings 1, 2, and 3 would
maintain the connectivity of the project site with the adjacent HON site. Therefore, the proposed project
would result in less-than-significant impacts related to land use compatibility.
Land Use Consistency
The proposed project would redevelop an area targeted for revitalization and would better utilize the existing
facilities by providing for expanded and improved educational facilities consistent with the applicable
regional plans and policies listed in Table 4.8-1, above. Specifically, the proposed project incorporates a
number of elements that would improve the pedestrian environment both on and adjacent to the project site, a
policy specified in the RCP and Growth Vision Report. Such elements include new entrances to the project
site from Santa Fe Avenue, walking paths across the campus, open space areas and amenities, and the
signalization of intersections along Santa Fe Avenue and Firestone Boulevard. The proposed project would
also use green development techniques such as the United States Green Building Council Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design-New Construction (LEED-NC) standards that would be consistent with
the policies in the Growth Vision Report. The LEED-NC designation would implement strategies to use
resources efficiently, eliminate pollution and significantly reduce waste through site design, water efficiency,
energy, indoor air quality design strategies.
taha 2012-090 4.8-10

The proposed project would include several components to minimize vehicular trips and promote alternative
transportation modes. For example, the proposed project would increase the amount of education resources
in the area and would, therefore, decrease the need for some students to commute to the ELAC campus,
which is located over seven miles to the northeast of the project site. Also, the project site is identified as a
bicycle hub in the City’s General Plan, and the proposed project would provide bike racks and related
amenities. In addition, the project site is located at the intersection of two major arterials, Santa Fe Avenue
and Firestone Boulevard, and there are two bus stops providing service to the project site, one at Santa Fe
Avenue and Firestone Boulevard and one at Ardmore and Santa Fe Avenues. The proposed project would
improve accessibility to educational services for residents in the region, which is consistent with the policy of
maximizing accessibility in the RTP/SCS. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with all of
the applicable policies of the RCP, RTP/SCS, and Growth Vision Report.
classroom facilities from local zoning regulations, the proposed project would be consistent with applicable
local plans and policies listed in Table 4.8-1, above. As discussed above, the project site is designated
Mixed Commercial/Industrial and is located in Subarea 1 of the SGCD. The introduction of a full service
institutional use would serve as an anchor to the revitalization of the surrounding community and future
development, consistent with the City vision for the project area. Also, as discussed above, the City is in the
process of updating its zoning code to reflect the vision, goals, objectives, and policies and development
intensities established within the General Plan. Nonetheless, the proposed project remains zoned Heavy
Manufacturing (M-3), which allows for high-intensity manufacturing uses, as well as lower-intensity
manufacturing uses categorized under the Light Manufacturing (M-2) and Commercial Manufacturing (C-M)
zones. Institutional land uses are permitted under all three of these industrial zones. The proposed project is
also consistent with the City of South Gate Municipal Code in relation to height. The proposed building and
parking structure would not exceed the maximum building height permitted in the Heavy Manufacturing
(M-3) zone of seven stories, or 85 feet, whichever is less. The new building would be approximately 50 feet
tall with three floors, and the parking structure would be approximately 70 feet tall. The proposed project
would be consistent with all applicable regional and local plans and policies. Therefore, the proposed project
would result in less-than-significant impacts related to land use consistency.
Parking
Parking requirements for a community college are not specifically defined in the South Gate Municipal
Code; however, according to the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation Manual, the
average weekday peak period parking demand for a community college is 0.18 vehicles per school
population. 4 School population includes students, faculty, and staff. The proposed project would allow for a
maximum enrollment of 9,000 students and would be staffed with 62 administrative and support staff
members and 90 full-time equivalent faculty members. Therefore, a total of 1,648 parking spaces would be
required to meet the demand of the college. The proposed project includes the construction of a 1,600-space
parking structure and a 60-space surface parking lot for a total of 1,660 parking spaces, providing a surplus
of 12 parking spaces for the college.
With regard to the existing warehouse uses that would continue to operate on-site, LACCD’s lease
agreements stipulate the number of parking spaces assigned to a tenant. Presently, approximately
234,152 square feet of Building 1, 81,514 square feet of Building 3 and 189,212 square feet of Building 4 are
actively being leased for warehouse uses. 5 Per current lease agreements, LACCD is required to provide
approximately 108 parking spaces to existing tenants. Currently, there are 83 stripped parking spaces and
approximately 32 unmarked parking spaces south of Building 1 along Firestone Boulevard and 29 stripped
parking spaces east of Building 1 along Santa Fee Avenue. In total, there are 144 parking spaces on-site
allocated to warehouse uses. Therefore, there are a sufficient number of parking spaces on-site to satisfy
4
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Parking Generation Manual, ITE Land Use Code 540 (Junior/Community
College) 4th Edition, 2010.
5
The tenant within Building 4 would relocate to Buildings 1 and/or 3 under the proposed project.
taha 2012-090 4.8-11

existing lease agreements between the LACCD and existing tenants and approximately 36 additional parking
spaces that could be assigned to future tenants.
Building 2, which was most recently occupied by the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) South
Gate Community Adult School, is currently vacant. However, in addition to the 144 parking spaces on-site
allocated to warehouse uses, there are an additional 89 parking spaces available for a future tenant within
Building 2. Accordingly, with implementation of the proposed project, a sufficient number of parking spaces
would be provided on-site to accommodate parking demand created by the proposed FEC, and existing and
future warehouse tenants. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts
related to parking.
Habitat Conservation Plans

As described above, the project site is not within any Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community
Conservation Plan. Therefore, no impacts related to habitat conservation plans would occur.
MITIGATION MEASURES
CONSTRUCTION
No impacts related to land use and planning would occur. No mitigation measures are required.
OPERATIONS
Impacts related to land use compatibility, land use consistency, parking, and habitat conservation plans
would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
CONSTRUCTION
No impacts related to land use and planning would occur.
OPERATIONS
Impacts related to land use compatibility, land use consistency, parking, and habitat conservation plans
would be less than significant without mitigation.
taha 2012-090 4.8-12

2013 Firestone Education Center Master Plan 4.9 Noise & Vibration
4.9 NOISE AND VIBRATION

This section provides an overview of noise and vibration levels and evaluates the construction and
operational impacts associated with the proposed project. Topics addressed include short-term construction
and long-term operational noise and ground-borne vibration. Supporting documentation is presented in
Appendix E.
The following background information provides noise and vibration characteristics and effects.
Noise Characteristics and Effects

Characteristics of Sound. Sound is technically described in terms of the loudness (amplitude) and
frequency (pitch). The standard unit of measurement for sound is the decibel (dB). The human ear is not
equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies. The “A-weighted scale,” abbreviated dBA, reflects the normal
hearing sensitivity range of the human ear. On this scale, the range of human hearing extends from
approximately 3 to 140 dBA. Figure 4.9-1 provides examples of A-weighted noise levels from common
sounds.
Noise Definitions. This noise analysis discusses sound levels in terms of Community Noise Equivalent
Level (CNEL) and Equivalent Noise Level (Leq).
CNEL is an average sound level during a 24-hour period and is a noise measurement scale, which accounts
for noise source, distance, single event duration, single event occurrence, frequency and time of day. Human
reaction to sound between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. is as if the sound were actually 5 dBA higher than if it
occurred from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. From 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., humans perceive sound as if it were 10
dBA higher due to the lower background level. Hence, the CNEL is obtained by adding an additional 5 dBA
to sound levels in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 10 dBA to sound levels in the night before
7:00 a.m. and after 10:00 p.m. Because CNEL accounts for human sensitivity to sound, the CNEL 24-hour
noise level is always a higher number than the actual 24-hour average.
Leq is the average noise level on an energy basis (i.e., acoustic energy of the sound) for any specific time
period. The Leq for one hour is the energy average noise level during the hour. Leq can be thought of as the
level of a continuous noise, which has the same energy content as the fluctuating noise level. The equivalent
noise level is expressed in terms of dBA.
Effects of Noise. Noise generally is defined as unwanted sound. The degree to which noise can impact the
human environment ranges from levels that interfere with speech and sleep (annoyance and nuisance) to
levels that cause adverse health effects (hearing loss and psychological effects). Human response to noise is
subjective and can vary greatly from person to person. Factors that influence individual response include the
intensity, frequency, and pattern of noise, the amount of background noise present before the intruding noise,
the nature of work or human activity that is exposed to the noise source.
Audible Noise Changes. Studies have shown that the smallest perceptible change in sound level for a
person with normal hearing sensitivity is approximately 3 dBA. A change of at least 5 dBA would be
noticeable and would likely evoke a community reaction. A 10-dBA increase is subjectively heard as a
doubling in loudness and would cause a community response. Noise levels decrease as the distance from the
noise source to the receiver increases. Noise generated by a stationary noise source, or “point source,” will
decrease by approximately 6 dBA over hard surfaces (e.g., pavement) and 7.5 dBA over soft surfaces (e.g.,
grass) for each doubling of the distance. For example, if a noise source produces a noise level of 89 dBA at a
reference distance of 50 feet, then the noise level would be 83 dBA at a distance of 100 feet from the noise
source, 77 dBA at a distance of 200 feet, and so on. Noise generated by a mobile source will decrease by
approximately 3 dBA over hard surfaces and 4.5 dBA over soft surfaces for each doubling of the distance.
taha 2012-090 4.9-1

dBA
Near Jet Engine

130
THRESHOLD OF PAIN
120
Deafening
Rock-n-Roll Band
110
Jet Flyover @1,000ft

100
Loud Auto Horn @ 10ft
Power Mower
90
Motorcycle @ 25ft Very Loud
Food Blender
80
Garbage Disposal
Living Room Music

70
Loud
Human Voice @ 3ft
60
Residential Air 50
Conditioner @ 50ft
Moderate
Bird Calls 40
Quiet Living Room 30

Faint
20
Average Whisper
Rustling Leaves 10
Very Faint
0 THRESHOLD OF HUMAN AUDIBILITY
SOURCE: Cowan, James P., Handbook of Environmental Acoustics.
taha 2012-090
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report A-WEIGHTED DECIBEL SCALE
Generally, noise is most audible when traveling by direct line-of-sight. Barriers, such as walls, berms, or
buildings that break the line-of-sight between the source and the receiver greatly reduce noise levels from the
source since sound can only reach the receiver by bending over the top of the barrier (diffraction).
Vibration Characteristics and Effects

Characteristics of Vibration. Vibration is an oscillatory motion through a solid medium in which the motion’s
amplitude can be described in terms of displacement, velocity, or acceleration. Vibration can be a serious
concern, causing buildings to shake and rumbling sounds to be heard. In contrast to noise, vibration is not a
common environmental problem. It is unusual for vibration from sources such as buses and trucks to be
perceptible, even in locations close to major roads. Some common sources of vibration are trains, buses on rough
roads, and construction activities, such as blasting, pile driving, and heavy earth-moving equipment.
Vibration Definitions. Several different methods that are used to quantify vibration. The peak particle
velocity (PPV) is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal. The PPV is most
frequently used to describe vibration impacts to buildings and is usually measured in inches per second. The
root mean square (RMS) amplitude is most frequently used to describe the affect of vibration on the human
body. The RMS amplitude is defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal. Decibel notation
(Vdb) is commonly used to measure RMS. The decibel notation acts to compress the range of numbers
required to describe vibration.
Effects of Vibration. High levels of vibration may cause physical personal injury or damage to buildings.
However, vibration levels rarely affect human health. Instead, most people consider vibration to be an
annoyance that may affect concentration or disturb sleep. In addition, high levels of vibration may damage
fragile buildings or interfere with equipment that is highly sensitive to vibration (e.g., electron microscopes).
Perceptible Vibration Changes. In contrast to noise, vibration is not a phenomenon that most people
experience every day. The background vibration velocity level in residential areas is usually 50 Vdb RMS or
lower, well below the threshold of perception for humans which is around 65 Vdb RMS. Most perceptible
indoor vibration is caused by sources within buildings, such as operation of mechanical equipment,
movement of people, or slamming of doors. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible vibration are
construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If the roadway is smooth, the
vibration from traffic is rarely perceptible.
Noise
Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD). The Baseline Design Goals and Standards state that,
“[C]lassrooms should be spaces where listening conditions are excellent so that students can learn.
Three factors are important in achieving a good listening environment. The first is correct room
acoustics, specifically avoiding the speech-blurring effects of reverberation. The second is good
isolation of sounds from elsewhere, so as to avoid distraction from competing conversations in
adjacent classrooms or interfering sound from street or air traffic. The third factor is adequately low
levels of background sound from heating and ventilation systems equipment. Especially for students
farthest from the teacher, ventilation-system noise often masks the intelligibility of the spoken word.
All three factors are addressed in good classroom designs.
Speech intelligibility, critical for an effective presentation, is directly related to the acoustics of the
room and the Noise Criteria (NC) rating (background noise in the room). The best sound system
cannot improve upon poor acoustics so it is essential to start with a relatively quiet room and good
acoustics. LACCD has established an NC 25 A-weighted for new construction and an NC 30 A-
weighted for renovations.”
taha 2012-090 4.9-3

An NC rating of 25 is equivalent to 35 dBA and an NC rating of 30 is equivalent to 40 dBA.
City of South Gate Municipal Code (SGMC). The City of South Gate maintains a comprehensive Noise
Ordinance within its SGMC that establishes interior and exterior noise level standards. The City has adopted
a number of policies that are directed at controlling or mitigating environmental noise effects. The City’s
Noise Ordinance (SGMC Chapter 11.29, Noise Emissions) establishes the daytime and nighttime noise
standards shown in Table 4.9-1. The Ordinance is designed to control unnecessary, excessive, and annoying
sounds generated from a stationary source impacting an adjacent property. It differentiates between
environmental and nuisance noise. Environmental noise is measured under a time average period while
nuisance noise cannot exceed the established Noise Ordinance levels at any time. Chapter 11.29.160
(Maximum permissible sound levels by receiving land use) prohibits any person within the City to make,
cause, or allow noise that is in excess of the specified levels presented in Table 4.9-1, except as expressly
provided otherwise. At the boundary line between a residential property and a commercial and
manufacturing property, the noise level of the quieter zone is required to be used.
TABLE 4.9-1: SOUTH GATE NOISE ORDINANCE STANDARDS

Noise Standards
Noise Zone Noise Level (dBA) /a, b/ Time Period
Noise Sensitive Area 45 Anytime
Residential Properties 50 7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.
40 10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.
Commercial Properties 55 Anytime
Industrial Properties 65 Anytime
/a/ As directed in the Code, the exterior noise limit is the higher of the values shown in the table or the actual measured ambient noise level (adjusted by
the duration correction adjustment shown in the footnote 2), when measured at the property boundary of land occupied by human beings at the time of
the noise emission.
/b/ The sound level limits are for sound which lasts longer than 30 minutes in a one-hour period. The time duration allowances shown below shall be
added to the limit levels above, for sound levels lasting less than one hour.
Duration (less than) Allowance
30 min/hour +3 dBA
15 min/hour +6 dBA
10 min/hour +8 dBA
5 min/hour +11 dBA
SOURCE: City of South Gate Municipal Code, website http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/southgate/, accessed November 26, 2013.
City of South Gate General Plan Noise Element. The City of South Gate General Plan Noise Element
examines noise sources in the City with a view toward identifying and appraising the potential for noise
conflicts and problems and identifies ways to reduce existing and potential noise impacts. The Noise
Element addresses noise that affects the community at large, rather than noise associated with site-specific
conditions. California Government Code Section 53094 includes provisions for school districts to exempt
classroom facilities from local zoning regulations. Objectives and policies of the City of South Gate General
Plan related to noise and vibration are identified in Table 4.9-2.
taha 2012-090 4.9-4

TABLE 4.9-2: APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RELATED TO NOISE AND
VIBRATION
NOISE ELEMENT
Objective N 1.1 Minimize noise levels from construction and maintenance equipment, vehicles, and activities.
Policy P.1 Construction activities will be prohibited between the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. Monday through
Saturday and on Sundays and Federal holidays.
Policy P.2 Construction noise reduction methods will be employed to the maximum extent feasible. These
measures may include, but not limited to, shutting off idling equipment, installing temporary acoustic
barriers around stationary construction noise sources, maximizing the distance between construction
equipment staging areas and occupied sensitive receptor areas, and use of electric air compressors
and similar power tools, rather than diesel equipment.
Policy P.3 Prior to approval of project plans and specifications by the City, project applicants and/or
construction contractors will identify construction equipment and noise reducing measures, and the
anticipated noise reduction.
Object N 2.1 Ensure noise impacts are considered in land use planning decisions.
Policy P.1 The City will adhere to the noise standards identified in Table 4.9-3.
Policy P.2 The City will incorporate noise considerations into land use planning decisions and future City land
use plans by establishing acceptable limits of noise for various land uses throughout the community.
Policy P.3 The City should fully integrate noise considerations into land use planning decisions to prevent new
noise/land use conflicts.
Policy P.4 The City will require that acoustical analysis be incorporated into the environmental review process
for the purposes of identifying potential noise impacts and noise abatement procedures.
Policy P.6 The City will require that all new non-residential development will demonstrate that ambient noise
levels will not exceed an exterior noise level of 65 dBA CNEL.
Policy P.7 New development projects will provide buffers and/or appropriate mitigation measures to reduce
potential noise sources on noise-sensitive land uses.
Policy P.8 The City should avoid locating noise-sensitive land uses in existing and future noise-impacted areas.
Policy P.9 The City will work to ensure acceptable noise levels are maintained near residential areas, schools,
hospitals, convalescent homes, churches, and other noise sensitive areas.
Objective N 3.1 Improve ambient noise conditions in sensitive land use areas.
Policy P.1 The City will identify and work with property owners to reduce or eliminate excessive or loud noise
near noise sensitive areas to meet the noise standards in the SGMC.
Policy P.3 The City should encourage the use of noise absorbing materials in existing and future development
to reduce interior noise impacts to sensitive land uses.
Objective N 3.3 Minimize noise impacts on residential or other noise-sensitive land uses located adjacent to non-
residential uses.
Policy P.1 Truck deliveries to non-residential uses abutting residential or noise sensitive uses will be limited to
the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
Policy P.2 New non-residential projects adjacent to residential uses will be required to incorporate noise
reducing features into the project design to minimize impacts to nearby residential uses and other
noise sensitive land uses.
Policy P.5 New buildings being developed adjacent to existing and/or planned residential uses or other noise-
sensitive land uses will be required to site and operate heating, ventilating, and air conditioning
generators in a manner that limits adverse noise impacts to the greatest extent feasible.
Policy P.6 Wherever feasible, parking areas for new or redeveloped non-residential uses should be buffered
and shielded by, but not limited to, walls, fences, and/or adequate landscaping.
Policy P.7 The City should encourage existing noise sensitive uses, including schools, libraries, health care
facilities, and residential uses in areas where existing or future noise levels exceed 65 dBA CNEL to
incorporate fences, walls, landscaping, and/or other noise buffers and barriers, where appropriate
and feasible.
Policy P.8 The City should encourage school districts or other educational facilities to locate outdoor activity
areas, such as play grounds and sport fields, away from residential areas.
The General Plan Update Program EIR includes the State guidelines established by the State Department of
Health Services for acceptable noise levels for each county and city. These standards and criteria are
taha 2012-090 4.9-5

incorporated into the land use planning process to reduce future noise and land use incompatibilities.
Table 4.9-3 is the primary tool that allows the City to ensure integrated planning for compatibility between
land uses and outdoor noise.
TABLE 4.9-3: LAND USE COMPATIBILITY FOR COMMUNITY NOISE ENVIRONMENTS

Community Noise Exposure (dBA, CNEL)
Land Use Category
55 60 65 70 75 80
Residential - Low Density Single-Family, Duplex,

Mobile Homes
Residential - Multi-Family
Transient Lodging - Motels Hotels
Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing

Homes
Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters
Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks
Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation,

Cemeteries
Office Buildings, Business Commercial and

Professional
Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture
Normally Acceptable - Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional
construction without any special noise insulation requirements.
Conditionally Acceptable - New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction
requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and
fresh air supply system or air conditionally will normally suffice.
Normally Unacceptable - New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does
proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.
Clearly Unacceptable - New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.
SOURCE: Office of Planning and Research, California, General Plan Guidelines, October 2003.
taha 2012-090 4.9-6

The General Plan Update Program EIR states that, “[T]he City of South Gate does not have a significance
threshold to assess noise impacts during construction for CEQA determinations of noise impacts.
Construction noise is a short-term temporary event, occurs mostly during daytime hours (such as 6:00 a.m. to
3:00 p.m.), and is considered a common necessity for new development. Notwithstanding, it was decided
that a significant impact would occur if construction activities were to exceed the noise standards expressed
in the City’s Noise Ordinance, 5 dBA above the ambient noise levels or the City’s noise limits for the
adjacent land use category, whichever is greater. The City of South Gate Department of Building and Safety
enforces noise ordinance provisions relative to equipment, and the Police Department enforces provisions
relative to noise generated by people.”
Vibration
Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD). LACCD has not established vibration standards.
City of South Gate Municipal Code. Chapter 11.29.180 (Specific prohibitions) of the City of South Gate
Municipal Code prohibits the operation of any device that creates a vibration which is above the vibration
perception threshold of an individual situated on adjacent or abutting property which is zoned for any use
other than manufacturing. The vibration perception threshold shall be deemed to be a motion velocity of
0.01 inches per second over a range of 1 to 100 Hertz. This standard is relevant to operational vibration.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Although not directly related to the proposed project, the FTA has
published guidance for assessing impacts from vibration. According to the FTA, non-engineered timber and
masonry buildings can be exposed to ground-borne vibration levels of 0.2 inches per second without
experiencing structural damage. 1 Building extremely susceptible to vibration damage (e.g., historic
buildings) can be exposed to ground-borne vibration levels of 0.12 inches per second without experiencing
structural damage.
EXISTING SETTING
Noise
Based on field observation, the existing noise environment in the vicinity of the project area is controlled
primarily vehicular traffic on local roadways, and to a lesser extent by occasional aircraft flyovers, and other
typical urban noise. Ambient noise measurements were taken using a SoundPro DL Sound Level Meter
between 11:15 a.m. and 2:10 p.m. on February 7, 2013 to determine existing ambient daytime off-peak noise
levels in the project vicinity. These readings were used to establish existing ambient noise conditions and to
provide a baseline for evaluating construction and operational noise impacts. Noise monitoring locations are
shown in Figure 4.9-2. As shown in Table 4.9-4, existing ambient sound levels range between 56.6 and
69.5 dBA Leq.
In addition to the ambient noise measurements, the existing traffic noise on local roadways in the
surrounding area near the proposed project site was calculated. Using existing traffic volumes provided by
the project traffic consultant and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) RD-77-108 noise calculation
formulas, the CNEL was calculated for various roadway segments near the project site. Existing mobile
noise levels are shown in Table 4.9-5. Mobile noise levels in the project area range from 68.3 to 71.3 dBA
CNEL. Modeled vehicle noise levels are typically lower than the noise measurements along similar roadway
segments as modeled noise levels do not take into account additional noise sources (e.g., sirens, horns,
helicopters, etc.).
1
Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006.
taha 2012-090 4.9-7

SA
NT
A
FE
U LIBERTY
AV
PR
7
UPRR
BLVD
E
R
R
IG
H
RIGHT
T-
O
F-
W
AY
-OF-W
PROJECT SITE
AY
MANCHESTER AVE
3
LO
N G
BE
AC
H
BL
1
VD
ALAME
ORCHAR
D PL
SANTA
DA ST
FIR
EST
ON 5
2 EB
FE AV
LVD LAUREL
PL
E
6
4
LEGEND:
Project Site
# Noise Monitoring Locations
1. Proposed Firestone Education Center
2. ELAC South Gate Educational Center - 2340 Firestone Boulevard
3. Single-Family Residence - 8569 Santa Fe Avenue
4. Single-Family Residence - 8822 Firestone Plaza
5. Single-Family Residence - 2709 Laurel Place N
6. Mirage Inn - 2724 Firestone Boulevard Approx.

Scale
7. Liberty Boulevard Elementary School - 2727 Liberty Boulevard
0 300 600
taha 2012-090
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report NOISE MONITORING LOCATIONS
TABLE 4.9-4: EXISTING NOISE LEVELS

Key to Figure 4.9-2 Noise Monitoring Location Sound Level (dBA, L eq)
1 Proposed Firestone Education Center 68.8
2 ELAC South Gate Educational Center 68.1
3 Single-Family Residences - 8569 Santa Fe Avenue 64.9
4 Single-Family Residences - 8822 Firestone Plaza 57.3
5 Single-Family Residences - 2709 Laurel Place 56.6
6 Mirage Inn - 2724 Firestone Boulevard 69.5
7 Liberty Boulevard Elementary School 57.6
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
TABLE 4.9-5: EXISTING MOBILE SOURCE NOISE LEVELS

Roadway Segment Estimated CNEL (dBA)
Santa Fe Avenue from Ardmore Avenue to Orchard Place 68.9
Santa Fe Avenue from Orchard Place to Firestone Boulevard 68.3
Firestone Boulevard from Calden Avenue to Truba Avenue 69.0
Firestone Boulevard from Truba Avenue to Long Beach Boulevard 71.3
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
Vibration
Similar to the environmental setting for noise, the vibration environment is dominated by traffic from nearby
roadways. Heavy trucks can generate vibrations that depends on vehicle type, weight, and pavement
conditions. As heavy trucks typically operate on major streets, existing vibration in the project vicinity is
largely related to heavy truck traffic on the surrounding roadway network. Field observations indicate that
truck vibration levels from adjacent roadways are not perceptible at the project site.
Sensitive Receptors
Noise- and vibration-sensitive land uses are locations where people reside or where the presence of unwanted
sound could adversely affect the use of the land. Residences, schools, hospitals, guest lodging, libraries, and
some passive recreation areas would each be considered noise- and vibration-sensitive and may warrant
unique measures for protection from intruding noise. Sensitive receptors near the project site are shown in
Figure 4.9-3 and include the following:
• Single- and multi-family residences located approximately 100 to the north
• Single-family residences located approximately 200 to the east
• Redeemer Lutheran Church and School located approximately 770 feet to the northeast
• Single-family residences located approximately 795 to the south
• Mirage Inn located approximately 800 feet to the southeast
• Sunrise Inn located approximately 810 feet to the southeast
• South Gate Educational Center located approximately 910 feet to the southwest
• Plaza Motel located approximately 1,010 feet to the southeast
• Liberty Boulevard Elementary School located approximately 1,170 feet to the northeast
The above sensitive receptors represent the nearest sensitive receptors to the site with the potential to be
impacted by the proposed project. Additional sensitive receptors are located further from the project site in the
surrounding community and would be less affected by the proposed project than the above sensitive receptors.
In addition to the off-site sensitive receptors, the planned educational facility is a land use sensitive to high
noise levels.
taha 2012-090 4.9-9

U
P
R
R
UPRR
R
IG
H
5
T-
O
SA
F-
RIGHT
NT
POPLAR 11
AY
A
MANCHESTER AVE PL
FE
AV
-OF-W
E
PROJECT SITE
2
AY
LO
GN
BE
ALAME
AC
H
1
BL
DA ST
VD
SANTA
FE AV
FIR
3
EST
E
ON
EB
LVD
4
9 7 8 10
6
LEGEND:
Project Site
# Noise Sensitive Receptors
1. Proposed Firestone Education Center 7. Mirage Inn
2. Single-Family Residences Located to the North 8. Sunrise Inn
3. Single-Family Residences Located to the East 9. South Gate Educational Center
4. LAUSD South Gate Community Adult School 10. Plaza Motel N
5. Redeemer Lutheran Church 11. Liberty Boulevard Elementary School Approx.

Scale
6. Single-Family Residences Located to the South
0 300 600
taha 2012-090
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report NOISE SENSITIVE
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
impact related to noise and vibration if it would:
• Create levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies, or result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project;
• Expose people to or generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels;
• Create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project; and/or
• Create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project.
The City of South Gate has not established quantitative significance thresholds to determine construction and
operational noise impact. However, based on the Noise Element of the City of South Gate General Plan for
construction noise and the typical community response to increased noise levels, the following specific
significant thresholds are relevant to the proposed project.
Construction Noise. The proposed project would have a significant impact related to construction activity if:
• Construction activities would exceed the ambient noise level by 5 dBA Leq or more at a noise sensitive
use.
Operational Noise. The proposed project would have a significant impact related to operational activity if:
• Classroom interior noise levels exceed 35 dBA L eq ; and/or
• Operational activity increases ambient noise levels of 5 dBA Leq or more at a noise sensitive use.
Construction Vibration. The proposed project would have a significant impact related to vibration if:
• Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings would be exposed to vibration levels that exceed
0.2 inches per second PPV; and/or
• Historic buildings would be exposed to vibration levels that exceed 0.12 inches per second.
Operational Vibration. The proposed project would have a significant impact related to vibration if:
• The proposed project would expose individuals situated on adjacent or abutting property, which is zoned
for any use other than manufacturing, to a vibration level of 0.01 inches per second.
IMPACTS
METHODOLOGY
The noise and vibration analysis considers construction and operational sources. The noise level during the
construction period at each receptor location was calculated by (1) making a distance adjustment to the
construction source sound level and (2) logarithmically adding the adjusted construction noise source level to
the ambient noise level. The noise level (i.e., mobile noise source) during the operational period was
calculated using FHWA RD-77-108 noise calculation formulas. Construction vibration levels are estimated
using equipment reference levels and propagation formulas provide by the FTA. Operational vibration is
qualitatively discussed based on guidance in the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.
taha 2012-090 4.9-11

CONSTRUCTION
Noise
Construction of the proposed project would result in temporary increases in ambient noise levels in the
project area on an intermittent basis. The increase in noise would occur during the approximate 32-month
construction schedule. Noise levels would fluctuate depending on the construction phase, equipment type
and duration of use, distance between the noise source and receptor, and presence or absence of noise
attenuation barriers. Construction activities typically require the use of numerous noise-generating
equipment. Typical noise levels from various types of equipment that may be used during construction are
listed in Table 4.9-6. The table shows noise levels at distances of 50 and 100 feet from the construction
noise source.
TABLE 4.9-6: MAXIMUM NOISE LEVELS OF COMMON CONSTRUCTION MACHINES

Noise Level (dBA)
Noise Source 50 Feet /a/ 100 Feet /a/
Front Loader 80 74
Trucks 89 83
Cranes (derrick) 88 82
Jackhammers 90 84
Generators 77 71
Back Hoe 84 78
Tractor 88 82
Scraper/Grader 87 81
Paver 87 81
Impact Pile Driving 101 95
Auger Drilling 77 71
/a/ Assumes a 6-dBA drop-off rate for noise generated by a “point source” and traveling over hard surfaces. Actual measured noise levels of the
equipment listed in this table were taken at distances of ten and 30 feet from the noise source.
SOURCE: USEPA, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment and Home Appliances, PB 206717, 1971.
To more accurately characterized construction-period noise levels, the average noise level was calculated
based on the quantity, type, and usage factors for each type of equipment that would be used during each
construction phase and are typically attributable to multiple pieces of equipment operating simultaneously.
The noise levels shown in Table 4.9-7 take into account the likelihood that more than one piece of
construction equipment would be in operation at the same time and lists the typical overall noise levels that
would be expected for construction. The highest noise levels are expected to occur during the
grading/excavation and finishing phases of construction. A typical piece of noisy equipment is assumed to
be active for 40 percent of the eight-hour workday (consistent with the USEPA studies of construction
noise), generating a noise level of 89 dBA Leq at a reference distance of 50 feet.
TABLE 4.9-7: OUTDOOR CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS

Construction Phase Noise Level At 50 Feet (dBA)
Ground Clearing 84
Grading/Excavation 89
Foundations 78
Structural 85
Finishing 89
SOURCE: USEPA, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment and Home Appliances, PB 206717, 1971.
taha 2012-090 4.9-12

Table 4.9-8 presents the estimated noise levels at a representative sample of sensitive receptors based on a
noise source of 89 dBA Leq. Typical construction activity using multiple pieces of equipment would increase
in ambient noise levels of 18.1 dBA and 15.5 Leq at the single- and multi-family residences to the north and
single-family residences to the east, respectively. Construction noise levels would exceed the 5-dBA
significance threshold at residential land uses north and east of the project site. Therefore, without
mitigation, the proposed project would result in a significant impact related to construction noise.
TABLE 4.9-8: CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS - UNMITIGATED

Maximum Existing
Construction Ambient New Ambient
Distance Noise Level Noise Level Noise Level
Sensitive Receptor (feet) /a/ (dBA) /b/ (dBA, L eq) /c/ (dBA, Leq) /d/ Increase /e/
Single- and Multi-Family Residences to the 100 83.0 64.9 83.0 18.1
North of the Project Site
Single-Family Residences to the East of the 200 72.0 56.6 72.1 15.5
Project Site
Redeemer Lutheran Church and School 770 45.2 57.6 57.8 0.2
Single-Family Residences to the South of 795 45.0 57.3 57.5 0.2
the Project Site
Mirage Inn 802 44.9 69.5 69.5 0.0
Sunrise Inn 810 44.8 69.5 69.5 0.0
South Gate Educational Center 911 43.8 68.1 68.1 0.0
Plaza Motel 1,010 42.9 69.5 69.5 0.0
Liberty Boulevard Elementary School 1,165 41.7 57.6 57.7 0.1
/a/ Distance of noise source from receptor.
/b/ Construction noise source's sound level at receptor location, with distance and building adjustment.
/c/ Pre-construction activity ambient sound level at receptor location.
/d/ New sound level at receptor location during the construction period, including noise from construction activity.
/e/ An incremental noise level increase of 5 dBA or more would result in a significant impact.
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
Vibration
Construction activity can generate varying degrees of vibration, depending on the construction procedure and
the construction equipment used. Operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread
through the ground and diminish in amplitude with distance from the source. The effect on buildings located
in the vicinity of a construction site often varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and construction
characteristics of the receiver building(s). The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at
the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration at moderate levels, to slight
damage at the highest levels.
In most cases, the primary concern regarding construction vibration relates to damage. Activities that can
result in damage include demolition and drilling in close proximity to sensitive structures. Typical vibration
levels associated with construction equipment are provided in Table 4.9-9. Heavy equipment (e.g., a large
bulldozer) generates vibration levels of 0.089 inches per second at a distance of 25 feet.
TABLE 4.9-9: VIBRATION VELOCITIES FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT

Equipment PPV at 25 feet (Inches/Second)
Caisson Drilling 0.089
Large Bulldozer 0.089
Loaded Trucks 0.076
Jackhammer 0.035
Small Bulldozer 0.003
SOURCE: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006.
taha 2012-090 4.9-13

The nearest residential structure to the proposed project site would be approximately 100 feet to the north.
The maximum vibration level at this distance would be 0.011 inches per second PPV. Construction vibration
would not exceed the 0.2 inches per second PPV damage threshold at any residential structure surrounding
the proposed project site. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact
related to construction vibration at nearby residences.
The proposed project site and the adjacent HON site buildings were found eligible for listing in the
California Register as a Historic District. The Historic District includes all four buildings on the project site
and two buildings on the HON site. Table 4.9-10 presents the estimated vibration levels related to building
damage at the identified historic buildings. Construction vibration would not exceed the 0.12 inches per
second damage threshold for building extremely susceptible to building damage. Therefore, the proposed
project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to construction vibration.
TABLE 4.9-10: VIBRATION VELOCITIES FOR BUILDING DAMAGE

Sensitive Receptor Distance (Feet) PPV (Inches/Second)
Building 3 25 0.089
HON site 100 0.011
Building 1 140 0.007
Building 2 400 0.001
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
OPERATIONS
Noise
Mobile Source Noise. The proposed project would generate new vehicle trips to and from the site
associated with the 9,000-student anticipated to enroll at the proposed FEC. The proposed project would
generate 2,780 net new trips per weekday. To ascertain mobile noise impacts, future roadway noise levels
were calculated based upon the proximity to noise sensitive uses and with the most increases in traffic
volume (i.e., PM peak-hour trip) from the proposed project to represent the worst case conditions. Results of
the PM peak-hour analysis are summarized in Table 4.9-11. Under Existing With Proposed Project
conditions, the greatest project-related noise increase would be 0.6 dBA CNEL and would occur along Santa
Fe Avenue between Orchard Place and Firestone Boulevard. Under Future With Proposed Project
conditions, the greatest project-related noise increase would be 0.5 dBA CNEL and would occur along two
roadway segments: Santa Fe Avenue between Ardmore Avenue and Orchard Place and Santa Fe Avenue
between Orchard Place and Firestone Boulevard. The roadway noise increase attributed to the proposed
project would be less than 3-dBA CNEL under both of the analyzed scenarios for all roadway segments. As
a result, traffic activity would not audibly increase noise levels. Therefore, the proposed project would result
in a less-than-significant impact related to mobile noise.
TABLE 4.9-11: MOBILE SOURCE NOISE

Estimated dBA, CNEL
Existing Future Future
With Without With
Roadway Segment Existing Project Increase Project Project Increase
Santa Fe Ave. from Ardmore Ave. to Orchard Pl. 68.9 69.4 0.5 69.8 70.2 1.1
Santa Fe Ave. from Orchard Pl. to Firestone Blvd. 68.3 68.9 0.6 69.1 70.2 1.1
Firestone Blvd. from Calden Ave. to Truba Ave. 69.0 68.7 (0.3) 70.7 70.5 (0.2)
Firestone Blvd. from Truba Ave. to Long Beach Blvd. 71.3 71.3 0.0 72.9 73.0 0.1
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
taha 2012-090 4.9-14

Parking Noise. The proposed project includes 1,600-space parking structure with one level at grade, five
levels above grade, and one partial level below grade. Noise sources associated with the parking structure
include car alarms, car horns, slamming of car doors, engine revs, and tire squeals. Instantaneous noise
events such as car alarm and horn noise would generate sound levels as high as 83 dBA at a distance of
25 feet and would be audible at sensitive receptors within the proximity of the parking structure. However,
car alarm and horn noise would be short-term and intermittent. Automobile movements would comprise the
most continuous noise source. Automobile movements would generate a noise level of approximately
58.1 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet. 2 The greatest parking-related noise increase would be 0.2 dBA Leq and
would occur at the nearest residential structure located approximately 100 feet to the north. The parking-
related noise increase attributed to the proposed project would be less than 5 dBA Leq increment at all
sensitive receptors within close proximity to the proposed parking structure. Therefore, the proposed project
would result in a less-than-significant impact related to parking structure activity.
The proposed project also includes the construction of a 60-space surface parking lot to the west of the
proposed FEC building. The surface parking lot would be visible from the entry of the new FEC building
and is intended mainly for short-term visitors, guests, and shuttle bus drop-off. The nearest residential land
uses, located approximately 315 to the north of the proposed surface parking lot, would not result in an
incremental noise level increase due to parking surface lot operations. The parking-related noise increase
attributed to the proposed project would be less than 5 dBA Leq increment at all sensitive receptors within
close proximity to the proposed parking structure. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less-
than-significant impact related to surface parking lot activity.
Outdoor Activity. The proposed project would include a large open space area at the center of the campus
developed as a place for students to gather. The open space area would include active and passive recreation
space, amenities for performances and ceremonies, public art, and greenery and shade. The open space area
would not include unusually loud sources of noise and would be located central to the project site. The open
space area would be screened from the view of sensitive receptors by the proposed parking structure, new
FEC building, and existing Building 3. As a result, the structures surrounding the proposed surface parking
lot would act as a sound barriers and reduce the sound levels. Based on the passive land uses associated with
the open space area and the central location, open space area-related activity would generate noise levels less
than 5 dBA and would not be audible at nearby residences. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a
less-than-significant impacts related to outdoor activity noise.
Mechanical Equipment. The proposed project would require building mechanical equipment (e.g., HVAC
equipment). The mechanical equipment would be located on the rooftop of the southern portion of the new
FEC building. Mechanical equipment (e.g., HVAC equipment) typically generates noise levels of
approximately 60 dBA Leq at 50 feet. The nearest residential land uses is located approximate 300 feet to the
east of the mechanical equipment operation. The nearest residences would experience a mechanical
equipment-related noise level of 61.7 dBA Leq, which is an increase of 0.1 dBA Leq from the ambient noise
level. This incremental noise level increase would not be audible at the nearest residential land uses and
would be less than the 5-dBA significance threshold. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less-
than-significant impacts related to mechanical equipment noise.
Land Use Compatibility/Interior Noise Levels. The proposed project would include new classroom
facilities on the project site. It is important that new school land uses are located in noise compatible
environments and comply with LACCD requirement of 35 dBA Leq interior noise level for classrooms.
Classroom activities at the new FEC building has the potential to be disrupted by vehicular traffic along
Santa Fe Avenue. The existing ambient noise level near the project site is 68.8 dBA Leq. Typical building
construction (e.g., single-glazed windows) provide a minimum noise reduction of approximately 24 dBA. 3
The interior noise levels at the classroom would be 44.8 dBA Leq, and would exceed the 35 dBA Leq
2
The reference parking noise level is based on a series of one-hour noise measurements completed 50 feet from vehicles
accessing a multi-level parking structure.
3
Federal Highway Administration, Noise Reduction Design Procedure, March 6, 2008.
taha 2012-090 4.9-15

significance threshold. However, it is LACCD policy that classrooms are constructed such that interior noise
levels do not exceed a Noise Criteria rating of 25 (equivalent to 35 dBA Leq). Construction techniques
implemented by LACCD (i.e., double-paned windows) would provide a noise reduction approximately up to
44 dBA. 4 Implementation of noise reducing components will ensure that classroom noise levels do not
exceed 35 dBA Leq. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to
land use compatibility.
Buildings 1 and 3 would continue to operate as a warehousing facility after completion of the proposed
project. Loading docks are located on the south and east sides of Building 1 and the east side of Building 3.
Loading activity would be completely screened and would not be audible from the new FEC building.
A 35-foot wide driveway separates the project site from the HON site immediately west of the project site.
The HON site was most recently utilized as a furniture manufacturing facility. This facility has since closed
and is currently in the process of being decommissioned. The HON site would not generate significant noise
levels at the project site. In addition, the Alameda Corridor is located approximately 1,000 feet west of the
project. Based on field observation, train activity in the rail trench is not audible at the project site.
The northern portion of the project site is located adjacent to the UPPR. These tracks are used infrequently
and periodically (less than five trains per week based on field observations) and are not a substantial source
of noise. There is an at-grade crossing near the Santa Fe/Ardmore Avenues intersection. Trains are required
to sound audible warning devices (usually a horn) at all at-grade crossings. Warning devices typically reach
an instantaneous noise level of at least 96 dBA. As a result, exterior noise levels on the project site would
reach approximately 90 dBA at the nearest location to the train and interior noise levels may exceed noise
standards for a very short period. Train noise would result in a less-than-significant impact because of the
short-term duration and the infrequency of the noise source. In addition, The LACCD Baseline Design
Guidelines and Standards would ensure that interior noise levels are acceptable for a learning environment.
Vibration
The primary sources of operational-related vibration would include passenger vehicle circulation within the
proposed parking structure and surface parking lot, on-site delivery truck activity, and off-site traffic traveling
on roadways in the vicinity of the proposed project site. Vehicular movements would generate similar vibration
levels as existing traffic condition. The proposed project would not include significant stationary sources of
ground-borne vibration, such as heavy equipment operations. As a result, the proposed project operations
would not increase the existing vibration levels at the new FEC building and sensitive receptors. Educational
facilities may experience vibration generated by heavy-duty truck activity at nearby land uses. However,
rubber-tired on-road vehicles rarely generate perceptible vibration at any distance. Therefore, the proposed
project would result in a less-than-significant impacts related to operational vibration.
MITIGATION MEASURES
CONSTRUCTION
N1 All construction equipment shall be equipped with muffler devices.
N2 Grading and construction contractors shall use quieter equipment as opposed to noisier equipment
(such as rubber-tired equipment rather than track equipment).
N3 Construction equipment shall be electric- and hydraulic-powered rather than diesel and pneumatic-
powered, as feasible.
N4 The construction contractor shall locate construction staging areas away from noise-sensitive uses.
4
Federal Highway Administration, Noise Reduction Design Procedure, March 6, 2008.
taha 2012-090 4.9-16

N5 Haul routes shall be located on major arterial roads within non-residential areas, as feasible.
N6 Prior to initiating construction activity, the construction contractor shall coordinate with the site
administrators for the Firestone Education Center to discuss construction activities that generate high
noise levels. Coordination between the site administrator and the construction contractor shall
continue on an as-needed basis throughout the construction phase of the project to mitigate potential
disruption of classroom activities.
N7 A “noise disturbance coordinator” shall be established. The disturbance coordinator shall be
responsible for responding to local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance
coordinator shall determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler,
etc.) and shall be required to implement reasonable measures such that the complaint is resolved.
All notices that are sent to residential units within 500 feet of the construction site and all signs
posted at the construction site shall list the telephone number for the disturbance coordinator.
OPERATIONS
No impacts related to noise and vibration would occur. No mitigation measures are required.

CONSTRUCTION
Noise
Implementation of Mitigation Measure N1 would reduce construction noise levels by 3 dBA. Noise level
reductions attributable to Mitigation Measures N2 through N7, although not easily quantifiable, would ensure
that any construction noise complaints are remedied. Table 4.9-12 presents the mitigated noise levels at the
impacted residential land uses. Construction activity would still exceed the significance threshold at
residential land uses north and east of the proposed project site. Therefore, the proposed project would result
in a significant and unavoidable impact related to construction noise.
TABLE 4.9-12: CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS - MITIGATED

Maximum
Construction Existing Ambient New Ambient
Distance Noise Level Noise Level Noise Level
Sensitive Receptor (feet) /a/ (dBA) /b/ (dBA, L eq) /c/ (dBA, L eq) /d/ Increase /e/
Single- and Multi-Family Residences 100 80.0 64.9 80.1 15.2
to the North of the Project Site
Single-Family Residences to the East 200 69.0 56.6 69.2 12.6
of the Project Site
/a/ Distance of noise source from receptor.
/b/ Construction noise source's sound level at receptor location, with distance and building adjustment.
/c/ Pre-construction activity ambient sound level at receptor location.
/d/ New sound level at receptor location during the construction period, including noise from construction activity.
/e/ An incremental noise level increase of 5 dBA or more would result in a significant impact.
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
Vibration
Impacts related to construction vibration were determined to be less than significant without mitigation.
OPERATIONS
Impacts related to noise and vibration were determined to be less than significant without mitigation.
taha 2012-090 4.9-17

2013 Firestone Education Center Master Plan 4.10 Population, Housing, & Employment
4.10 POPULATION, HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT

This section provides an overview of population, housing, and employment and evaluates construction and
operational impacts associated with the proposed project. Topics addressed include population, housing, and
employment growth, and displacement of residents and housing.
Federal
There are no federal population, housing, or employment regulations applicable to the proposed project.
State
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). State Housing Law
(Government Code Section 65580) requires local government plans to address the existing and projected
housing needs of all economic segments of the community through their housing elements. The housing
element is one of seven state-mandated elements that every general plan must contain, and is required to be
updated every five years and determined legally adequate by the State. The purpose of the housing element
is to identify the community’s housing needs, state the community’s goals and objectives with regard to
housing production, rehabilitation, and conservation to meet those needs, and define the policies and
programs that the community will implement to achieve the stated goals and objectives.
California Relocation Assistance Act. The California Relocation Assistance Act (Government Code
Section 7260 et seq.) establishes uniform policies to provide for the fair and equitable treatment of people
displaced from their homes or businesses as a direct result of state and/or local government projects or
programs. The California Relocation Assistance Act requires that comparable replacement housing be made
available to displaced persons within a reasonable period of time prior to the displacement. Displaced
persons or businesses are assured payment for their acquired property at fair market value. Relocation
assistance in the form of advisory assistance and financial benefits would be provided at the local level. This
includes aid in finding a new home location, payments to help cover moving costs, and additional payments
for certain other costs.
Homeowners and Private Property Protection Act. In 2008, California voters approved Proposition 99,
the Homeowners and Private Property Protection Act, which amended the California Constitution so that
local governments are prohibited from using eminent domain authority to acquire an owner-occupied
residence for the purposes of conveying it to a private recipient, with limited exceptions. Proposition 99
applies only to owner-occupied residences. Cities may still use eminent domain authority to convey multi-
family and non-residential property to other private parties.
Local
Element provides land use policy guidance for existing and new development in the City. The project site is
identified in the Community Design Element as being located within Subarea 1 of the South Gate College
District. The Community Design Element identifies goals, objectives, and policies related to the creation of
jobs. As the proposed project is the construction of a new LACCD satellite campus, under California
Government Code Section 53094, the proposed project is exempt from the City of South Gate General Plan
requirements. However, for informational purposes, applicable objectives and policies of the City’s General
Plan related to population, housing, and employment are identified in Table 4.10-1.
taha 2012-090 4.10-1


POPULATION, HOUSING, AND EMPLOYMENT
Objective CD 6.1 Create a series of distinct Districts throughout the City, each with its own character, identity,
and mix of uses.
Policy P1 The City will pursue the redevelopment and enhancement of the identified Districts in the City
in order to enhance economic diversity, expand the tax base, provide a diversity of job
opportunities for City residents, contribute to housing diversity and provide residents with
essential goods and services.
Policy P2 The South Gate College District will focus on job-producing uses.
EXISTING SETTING
Population and Housing
The project site is located at 2525 Firestone Boulevard on the northwest corner of the Firestone
Boulevard/Santa Fe Avenue intersection in the City of South Gate within the County of Los Angeles. The
project site is currently developed with four buildings that are either vacant or partially utilized for
warehousing purposes. No housing units currently or have ever been located on the project site. As shown
in Table 4.10-2, in 2010, the City of South Gate had a population of 94,396 residents and a housing
inventory of 24,160 dwelling units. 1 In the same year, the County of Los Angeles had a population of
9,818,605 residents and a housing inventory of 3,443,087 dwelling units. Accordingly, in 2010, the
population and housing inventory of the City of South Gate accounted for just 0.96 percent and 0.70 percent,
respectively, of the County’s total population and housing inventory. Based on household population and
occupied housing units, in 2010, the average household size in the City was 4.05 persons per household
(pph) while the average household size in the County was 2.99 pph.
TABLE 4.10-2: 2010 POPULATION AND HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS

Area Population Dwelling Units Average Persons Per Household
City of South Gate 94,396 24,160 4.05
County of Los Angeles 9,818,605 3,443,087 2.99
SOURCE: United States Census Bureau, 2010.
Employment
The project site is currently developed with four buildings totaling approximately 1,067,987 square feet of
building area. Of the total square footage, 504,878 square feet of building area is actively utilized for
warehousing purposes. Based on an employment factor of 1 employee per 1,000 square feet, it is estimated
that approximately 505 jobs are associated with existing warehousing uses on the project site.
The existing SGEC has approximately 15 administrative and support staff members and 42 full-time-
equivalent (FTE) faculty members to serve 4,912 students. 2
1
United States Census Bureau, QuickFacts, City of South Gate, available at: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/
06/0673080.html, accessed January 28, 2013.
2
East Los Angeles College, email from Dr. Ryan M. Cornner, Dean of Intuitional Effectiveness, February 8, 2013.
taha 2012-090 4.10-2

impact related to population and housing if it would:
• Induce substantial population growth in an area either directly (for example by proposing new homes or
businesses) or indirectly (for example through extension of new roads or infrastructure);
• Displace substantial numbers of existing housing necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere; and/or
• Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
IMPACTS
CONSTRUCTION
Construction of the proposed project would create temporary construction-related jobs. Construction jobs
created by the proposed project would not likely result in population growth in the project area. The work
requirements of most construction jobs are highly specialized so that construction workers remain at a job
site only for the timeframe in which their specific skills are needed to complete a particular phase of the
construction process. Therefore, construction workers would not be likely to relocate their household’s place
of residence as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, impacts related to population, housing and
employment growth and displacement would be less than significant
OPERATIONS
Population and Housing Growth and Displacement
The proposed project would result in the operation of the FEC, a new LACCD satellite campus that would
replace the existing SGEC. The FEC would accommodate up to 9,000 students. The timeframe for this level
of enrollment is uncertain; however, for purposes of analysis, it is assumed that student enrollment capacity
would be met in 2031. The proposed project does not include a housing or residential component.
The project site is developed with four buildings, which are either currently vacant or used for storage. No
housing exists or has ever existed on the project site. As discussed in Chapter 3.0 Project Description, the
proposed project includes the demolition of Building 4 and its connections to Building 3, and the
construction of a new 100,000-gross-square-foot building and a parking structure in its place. Any tenants
within Building 4 would move to Building 1 or 3. Buildings 1, 2, and 3 would not be used for college uses,
and LACCD would continue to lease these facilities to tenants for warehousing and other appropriate uses.
Since the proposed project does not include a residential component, it would not increase the residential
population of the City of South Gate. Likewise, since the project site does not contain housing, the proposed
project would not result in the displacement of persons or housing. Therefore, impacts related to population
and housing growth and displacement would be less than significant.
Employment Growth and Displacement

Current employees at the existing SGEC would move to the new FEC. However, as student enrollment
increases, the addition of new employees would ensure that the needs of future students are adequately met.
As discussed above, there are currently 15 administrative and support staff members and 42 FTE faculty
members working at the SGEC to serve an enrollment of 4,912 students. The FEC would accommodate up to
9,000 students. The timeframe for this level of enrollment is uncertain; however, it is assumed that this
student enrollment capacity would be met in 2031. LACCD estimates that when operating at maximum
taha 2012-090 4.10-3

student capacity, the FEC would be staffed with 62 administrative and support staff members and 90 FTE
faculty members. Accordingly, there would be 152 jobs associated with the proposed project a net increase
of 95 jobs in the City of South Gate. Any tenants within Building 4 would move to Building 1 or 3.
Buildings 1, 2, and 3 would not be used for college uses, and LACCD would continue to lease these facilities
to tenants for warehousing and other appropriate uses. The jobs associated with existing warehousing uses
on the project site would remain.
The City of South Gate General Plan Community Design Element calls for the SGCD to focus on job-
producing uses. As such, the creation of new jobs at the project site is desired by the City of South Gate and
consistent with policies of the City’s General Plan. The 95 new jobs created by the FEC would not likely
cause individuals to relocate to the City of South Gate which could result in population growth, as these jobs
can be filled by existing City of South Gate residents or residents of nearby communities. Therefore, impacts
related to employment growth and displacement would be less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES
CONSTRUCTION
Impacts related to population, housing and employment growth and displacement would be less than
OPERATIONS
Impacts related to population, housing and employment growth and displacement would be less than

CONSTRUCTION
Impact related to population, housing and employment growth and displacement were determined to be less
OPERATIONS
Impacts related to population, housing and employment growth and displacement were determined to be less
taha 2012-090 4.10-4

2013 Firestone Education Center Master Plan 4.11 Public Services
4.11 PUBLIC SERVICES

This section provides an overview of public services and evaluates construction and operational impacts
associated with the proposed project. Topics addressed include fire protection and emergency services,
police protection services, public schools, and parks or other public facilities.
FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES
Federal
There are no federal fire protection regulations applicable to the proposed project.
State
California Fire Code. California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, Part 9 is the California Fire Code.
The California Fire Code sets forth regulations regarding building standards, fire protection, notification
systems, devices such as fire extinguishers and smoke alarms, high-rise building standards, and fire
suppression training. The 2010 California Fire Code is the incorporation of the 2009 International Fire Code
of the International Code Council with necessary California amendments. The proposed project would be
subject to applicable regulations of the California Fire Code.
Local
City of South Gate General Plan Public Facilities and Service Systems Element. The City of South Gate
General Plan Public Facilities and Service Systems Element provides policy guidance to ensure the provision
of public facilities and services to support existing and new development in the City. The Public Facilities
and Service Systems Element goal related to fire protection and emergency services is to have “increased fire
safety and high quality Emergency Medical Services (EMS).” While California Government Code
Section 53094 includes provisions for school districts to exempt classroom facilities from local zoning
regulations, applicable objectives and policies of the City of South Gate General Plan related to fire
protection services are identified in Table 4.11-1.
City of South Gate Municipal Code (SGMC) Chapter 10.12. SGMC Chapter 10.12 is the City’s Fire
Code. The City adopted the California Fire Code as its fire code and amended provisions with approval of
City Ordinance No. 1922 on August 11, 1992. The proposed project would be subject to building regulations
and requirements of the City’s Fire Code.
taha 2012-090 4.11-1

TABLE 4.11-1: APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RELATED TO FIRE
PROTECTION SERVICES
Objective PF 2.1 Provide professional, efficient fire protection and EMS services.
Policy P.1 The City should work with the County of Los Angeles Fire Department to continuously improve
the performance and efficiency of fire protection services for the City of South Gate.
Policy P.2 The City should work with the County of Los Angeles Fire Department to ensure adequate fire-
fighting and EMS infrastructure, equipment, and personnel to provide a high level of fire and
emergency medical service in South Gate to meet growing demands.
Policy P.3 The City should work with the County of Los Angeles Fire Department to maintain its current
distribution of fire stations, seeking to maintain goals of a maximum of 3 miles between stations
and 5 minute response times.
Policy P.4 In coordination with the County of Los Angeles County Fire Department and surrounding cities,
South Gate will support the replacement of old facilities and outdated fire facilities with new
facilities containing the necessary infrastructure and design features to adequately support fire
and emergency functions for the area.
Policy P.5 The City will ensure that sufficient water service and pressure is available throughout the City for
use in fire fighting.
Policy P.6 The City will work with the County of Los Angeles Fire Department to explore funding sources,
such as impact fees from development or parcel taxes, to ensure a high level of fire services for
the City.
Policy P.7 The City will work with the Fire Department to proactively plan for increases in population and
employment growth and changes in the use and types of buildings in South Gate.
Objective PF 2.2 Ensure that all new development includes adequate provision for fire safety.
Policy P.1 All new development will comply with fire safety requirements of the California Building Fire
Code and California Building Code as adopted by the City of South Gate.
Policy P.2 All new development will provide water mains and hydrants as necessary to create adequate fire
service.
Policy P.3 All new development will provide adequate access for fire service vehicles and personnel.
Policy P.4 While seeking to maintain access, fire safety, and adequate response times, the City and the
Fire Department will work together to develop creative solutions that allow for mixed-use and
compact development, pedestrian-friendly streets, and other elements of a walkable, bikeable,
and safe city.
EXISTING SETTING
Fire protection services including fire prevention, fire suppression, and emergency medical services are
provided to the City of South Gate by the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD). The mission of
the LACFD is to protect lives, the environment, and property by providing prompt, skillful, and cost-
effective fire protection and life safety services. The LACFD service area is broken down by region, division,
and battalion. The City of South Gate is located in Central Region, Division VI, Battalion 13. Battalion 13
includes the cities of South Gate, Huntington Park and Lynwood, and unincorporated Los Angeles. There are
eight fire stations located within the Battalion 13 service area, two are located in the City of South Gate. The
LACFD uses the national response guidelines of a five-minute response time for first arriving fire and EMS
responses and an eight-minute response time for the advanced life support (paramedic) units in urban areas. 1
1
Los Angeles County Fire Department, Planning Division. Email Correspondence with Loretta Bagwell, Planning Analyst,
on January 31, 2013.
taha 2012-090 4.11-2

According to the LACFD Battalion Response Map, the project site is located within the service boundaries of
Fire Station 16. 2 Fire Stations 16, 147, and 54 would provide first, second, and third response to the project
site, respectively. 3 Their locations are shown in Figure 4.11-1. Equipment and staffing of fire stations
serving the project site is listed in Table 4.11-2.
TABLE 4.11-2: EQUIPMENT AND STAFFING OF FIRE STATIONS SERVING THE PROJECT SITE
Fire Station Equipment Staffing
Fire Station 16 Four-Person Engine 1 Captain, 1 Firefighter Specialist, 1 Firefighter Paramedic,
1 Firefighter
Three-Person Engine 1 Captain, 1 Firefighter Specialist, 1 Firefighter
Two-Person Paramedic Squad 2 Firefighter Paramedics
Fire Station 147 Four-Person Quint /a/ 1 Captain, 1 Firefighter Specialist, 1 Firefighter Paramedic,
1 Firefighter
Two-Person Paramedic Squad 2 Firefighter Paramedics
Fire Station 54 Four-Person Engine 1 Captain, 1 Firefighter Specialist, 1 Firefighter Paramedic,
1 Firefighter
Two-Person Paramedic Squad 1 Captain, 1 Firefighter Specialist, 1 Firefighter Paramedic,
1 Firefighter
/a/ A quint is a combination engine/ladder truck apparatus.
SOURCE: Los Angeles County Fire Department, Planning Division, email correspondence with Loretta Bagwell, Planning Analyst, January 31, 2013.
Fire Station 16 is located at 8010 South Compton Avenue in Florence, an unincorporated community of Los
Angeles County, 1.3 miles northwest of the project site. In 2012, Fire Station 16 met the LACFD response
time guidelines with an average emergency and non-emergency response time of approximately 4:38 minutes
and 5:36 minutes, respectively. Fire Station 16 responded to 3,782 incidents during that time period, of
which, 80 were fire related, 3,164 were emergency medical incidents, and 538 were other types. 4
Fire Station 147 is located at 3161 East Imperial Highway in the City of Lynwood, 2.1 miles southwest of the
project site. In 2012, Fire Station 147 met the LACFD response time guidelines with an average emergency
and non-emergency response time of approximately 4:07 minutes and 5:10 minutes, respectively. Fire
Station 147 responded to 3,155 incidents during that time period, of which, 78 were fire related, 2,586 were
emergency medical incidents, and 491 were other types. 5
Fire Station 54 is located at 4867 Southern Avenue in the City of South Gate, 2.5 miles east of the project
site. In 2012, Fire Station 54 met the LACFD response time guidelines with an average emergency and non-
emergency response time of approximately 5:03 minutes and 6:25 minutes, respectively. Fire Station 54
responded to 3,037 incidents during that time period, of which, 103 were fire related, 2,587 were emergency
medical incidents, and 347 were other types. 6
2
Los Angeles County Fire Department, LACoFD Battalion Response Map. Website: http://fire.lacountygov/Hometown
FireStations/PDFs/CountyFS_map2012.pdf accessed November 20, 2012.
3
Los Angeles County Fire Department, Planning Division. Email Correspondence with Loretta Bagwell, Planning Analyst,
on January 31, 2013.
4
Ibid.
5
Ibid.
6
Ibid.
taha 2012-090 4.11-3

UPRR
SANTA FE AVE
RIGH
STATE ST
T-OF
ATLA
NADEAU ST
1!(
-WAY
NTIC
BROADW
AY
PROJECT SITE
BLVD
D
R
IA
LIBERTY
BLVD ER
MANCHESTER AVE N
O
UPRR RIGHT
-OF-WAY JAB
1
LACMTA BLUE LINE
FIRESTONE
BLVD
SOUTHERN
ALAM
AVE
CALIFORNIA
EDA
E
LON
D AV
3 2
ST
G BE
FIEL
TWEEDY BLV AVE
CENTURY BLVD D
ACH
GAR
BLVD
NORTON AV
E
IMPERIAL
HWY
IMPERIAL HWY
105
2!( 710
LEGEND:
Project Site
# Fire Stations # Police Stations

1. Fire Station 16 1. South Gate Police Station - Main Station
Approx.
2. Fire Station 147 2. South Gate Police Station - Substation Scale
3. Fire Station 54 0 2400 4800

taha 2012-090
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report FIRE AND POLICE STATIONS
impact related to fire protection if it would:
• Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered
government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection
services.
IMPACTS
CONSTRUCTION
Building 3, and the construction of a new 100,000-gross-square-foot building and an approximately 1,600-
space parking structure on the northern portion of the project site. In addition, the project site would be
improved with an approximately 60-space surface parking lot, landscaping, an open space area, and other
outdoor amenities. Vehicular access and circulation improvements would also be implemented on- and off-
site. Under the proposed project, the Santa Fe/Ardmore Avenues intersection would be signalized to provide
direct access to the proposed parking structure. The signalized Firestone Boulevard driveway would
facilitate vehicular access to the project site, Buildings 1 and 3, and the adjacent HON site.
Although short-term, construction activities within the Firestone Boulevard and Santa Fe Avenue right-of-
ways could impact the use of these streets by emergency response vehicles, potentially delaying LACFD
emergency response. Any lane closures, movement of heavy construction equipment, or any construction in,
or use of, the Firestone Boulevard and Santa Fe Avenue right-of-ways would need to be coordinated with the
LACFD to avoid such delays. While construction of the proposed project could temporarily reduce LACFD
emergency response times, LACFD service levels would not be permanently impaired as a result of the
proposed project such that the construction of new or expanded facilities would be required in order to
maintain adequate service levels. Therefore, without mitigation, the proposed project would result in less-
than-significant impacts related to fire protection services.
OPERATIONS
The proposed project would result in the relocation and expansion of the existing South Gate Education
Center (SGEC) campus to the project site. The proposed project is intended to accommodate existing and
projected student enrollment at the SGEC campus, and would not increase resident population in the LACFD
service area. The proposed project would, however, result in a net increase in LACCD students and
employees in the area, potentially increasing demand for LACFD services and reducing emergency response
times. This increase in activity at the project site would occur incrementally over several years, as student
enrollment reaches its maximum capacity of 9,000 students. LACCD anticipates that capacity would be
reached in 2031.
The LACFD has indicated that the proposed project would not create a need for additional staffing or
resources in order for the LACFD to continue to meet national response guidelines. Additionally, the City
has a policy of working with the Fire Department to proactively plan for increases in population and
employment growth and changes in the use and types of buildings in South Gate. Accordingly, operation of
the proposed project would not result in unanticipated increases in demand such that the expansion of
existing fire stations and/or construction of new fire stations would be necessary to maintain an adequate
taha 2012-090 4.11-5

level of fire service to the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant
impacts related to fire protection services.
MITIGATION MEASURES
CONSTRUCTION
PS1 Prior to the construction of the proposed project, LACCD shall provide to the LACFD all building
plans, construction plans, construction schedules, and, if applicable, proposed construction and street
or lane closures related to the proposed project for Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD)
review and approval.
PS2 At least three days in advance of any street or lane closure that may affect Fire and/or Paramedic
responses in the area, LACCD shall notify the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, South Gate Police
Department, LACFD, and Fire Stations 16, 147, and 54.
OPERATIONS
Impacts related to fire protection and emergency services would be less than significant. No mitigation

CONSTRUCTION
Impacts related to fire protection services were determined to be significant without mitigation. Mitigation
Measures PS1 and PS2 would reduce these impacts to less than significant.
OPERATIONS
Impacts related to fire protection services were determined to be less than significant without mitigation.
POLICE PROTECTION SERVICES
Federal
There are no federal police protection services regulations applicable to the proposed project.
State
There are no State police protection services regulations applicable to the proposed project.
taha 2012-090 4.11-6

Local
and Service Systems Element goal related to police protection services is to have “excellent law enforcement
and improved public safety.” While California Government Code Section 53094 includes provisions for
school districts to exempt classroom facilities from local zoning regulations, applicable objectives and
policies of the City’s General Plan related to police services are identified in Table 4.11-3.
TABLE 4.11-3: APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RELATED TO POLICE
PROTECTION SERVICES
Objective PF 2.1 Provide courteous, responsive and efficient police services.
Policy P.1 The City will strive to continuously improve the performance and efficiency of the Police
Department.
Policy P.2 To the extent feasible, the City should raise the ratio of police officers to residents to a minimum
of 1.0 officer per 1,000 residents, and maintain personnel and facilities in the Police Department
necessary to provide the best response time feasible.
Policy P.3 The Police Department will maintain adequate police staffing, performance levels and facilities to
serve the existing South Gate population as well as its future growth.
Policy P.4 To the extent feasible, the City will replace the city’s existing police facility with a new facility that
is adequate to serve the existing and expected future police force.
Policy P.5 As the need arises, new police substations may be located throughout the City, wherever
feasible and possible.
Policy P.6 The Police Department will monitor crime data using COMPSTAT and other systems, as
needed, and prepare annual reports on the status of crime in South Gate.
Objective PF 2.2 Promote coordination between land use planning and urban design, and law enforcement.
Policy P.1 The Police Department will continue to work with the Community Development Department to
review and modify development proposals to incorporate “defensible space” concepts and other
public safety design concepts into new development.
Policy P.2 The Police Department will work with the Community Development Department during the
revision of the zoning code to incorporate a variety of safety concerns such as fence heights in
front yards, requiring off-street parking of vehicles, visibility of the property from the street and
night lighting.
Policy P.3 New development in the City will be required to mitigate project-related impacts to police
services. Individual development projects will pay any fees required by a Public Safety Impact
Fee, once established by the City.
EXISTING SETTING
The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) and the City of South Gate Police Department
(SGPD) provide on-campus security and/or police protection services to the existing SGEC and the project
site.
Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (LASD). The LASD provides security protection to all LACCD
campuses. Security protection at LACCD campuses is administered by the LASD Community College
Bureau. The Community College Bureau headquarters is located at the Los Angeles City College campus in
the City of Los Angeles. The contract between LACCD and LASD requires that the LACCD provide
taha 2012-090 4.11-7

building space at each of its campuses for LASD security personnel operations. The LASD does not have a
department-wide officer-to-student ratio or operating standard for the LACCD community college. 7
A sheriff station is located at each LACCD campus, except at the existing SGEC. Instead, officers from the
ELAC are stationed in the SGEC Health and Safety office. During the day shift, the SGEC is staffed by one
Sheriff’s Security Officer and one Cadet. During the evening shift, the SGEC is staffed by one Sheriff’s
Security Officer, one Cadet, and one Deputy Sheriff. Currently, the LASD level of law enforcement services
is adequate. 8
Table 4.11-4 lists the reported Part I crime offenses that occurred at the existing SGEC in 2010. Part I crime
offenses are considered to be the most serious offenses and include homicide, forcible rape, robbery,
aggravated assault, burglary, and theft. During 2010, the LASD recorded five Part I crime offenses at the
existing SGEC.
TABLE 4.11-4: PART I CRIME OFFENSES IN 2010

Incidents at Percentage of Existing Incidents in the City Percentage of All City
Part I Crime Offense Existing SGEC SGEC Incidents of South Gate Incidents
Homicide -- -- 7 0.02%
Rape -- -- 13 0.04%
Robbery -- -- 326 9.12%
Assault -- -- 613 17.15%
Burglary 1 20.0% 484 13.54%
Larceny (theft) 1 20.0% 1,295 36.22%
Grand Theft Auto 1 20.0% 825 23.08%
Hit and Run 1 20.0% -- --
Arson -- -- 12 0.03%
Vandalism 1 20.0% -- --
TOTAL 5 100.0% 3,575 100.0%
SOURCE: South Gate Police Department, South Gate Police Department Annual Crime Statistics 1978-2011, available at:
http://www.southgatepd.org/images/webuser/CrimeInformation/Annual_Crime_Statistics.pdf accessed, November 21, 2012 and Los Angeles County
Sheriff’s Department Community College Bureau, Captain Ralph J. Webb, Written Correspondence, February 2, 2011.
South Gate Police Department (SGPD). The SGPD provides police protection services to the project site.
The SGPD main station and substation provide police protection services to the City. The SGPD main
station is located at 8620 California Avenue, approximately one mile east of the project site. The SGPD
substation is located at 5631 Firestone Boulevard, approximately 3.5 miles east of the project site. The
SGPD is staffed by 80 sworn officers. 9 Currently, the SGPD officer-to-resident ratio is one officer per
1,375 residents, which is below the national average target staffing ratio of two officers per 1,000 residents
and the City’s General Plan goal of one officer per 1,000 resident. 10
In 2010, the SGPD responded to 38,506 calls. 11 As shown, most of the Part I crimes were related to larceny
(1,295 offenses or 36 percent of all Part I crime offenses), followed by grand theft auto (825 offenses or
23 percent of all Part I crime offenses), assault (613 offenses or 17 percent of all Part I crime offenses), and
burglary (484 offenses or 14 percent of all Part I Crime offenses).
7
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Community College Bureau, Captain Ralph J. Webb, written Correspondence,
February 2, 2011.
8
Ibid.
9
South Gate Police Department, Captain Darren Sullivan, e-mail Correspondence, February 1, 2011.
10
Ibid.
11
South Gate Police Department, South Gate Police Department Annual Crime Statistics 1978-2011, available at:
http://www.southgatepd.org/images/webuser/CrimeInformation/Annual_Crime_Statistics.pdf accessed November 21, 2012.
taha 2012-090 4.11-8

impact related to police protection services if it would:
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection.
IMPACTS
CONSTRUCTION
Construction of the proposed project could temporarily affect LASD and SGPD service levels. As
previously discussed, construction activities include street improvements within the Firestone Boulevard and
Santa Fe Avenue right-of-ways that could potentially impact the use of these streets by emergency response
vehicles, potentially delaying SGPD emergency response. Any lane closures, movement of heavy
construction equipment, or any construction in, or use of, the Firestone Boulevard and Santa Fe Avenue
right-of-ways would need to be coordinated with the LASD and SGPD in order to avoid response time
delays. However, since the construction of the proposed project is temporary, the construction of new or
expanded LASD and SGPD facilities would not be necessary to maintain an adequate level of police
protection services to the project site and the City. Therefore, without mitigation, the proposed project would
result in a significant impact related to police protection services.
OPERATIONS
The proposed project would result in the relocation and expansion of the existing SGEC campus to the
project site. The proposed project is intended to accommodate existing and projected student enrollment at
the SGEC campus, and would not increase resident population in the SGPD service area. Accordingly, the
SGPD officer-to-resident ratio would not be reduced as a result of the proposed project. The proposed
project would however result in a net increase in LACCD students and employees in the area, potentially
increasing demand for police protection services. This increase in activity at the project site would occur
incrementally over several years, as student enrollment reaches its maximum capacity of 9,000 students.
LACCD anticipates that capacity would be reached in 2031.
With implementation of the proposed project, LASD security officers staffed at the existing SGEC would be
relocated to the project site and serve the proposed project. The proposed project would comply with the
contract between LASD and LACCD and provide an adequate amount of building space to accommodate
LASD security personnel serving proposed project. Although the LASD security personal would provide
protection services to the project site, operation of the proposed project and related increased activity in the
area could create increase demand for SGPD police protection services. However, the SGPD has indicated
that the provision of private campus police/security at the FEC would ensure that SGPD service levels would
not be impaired as a result of the proposed project. 12 Since the LASD would provide security services to the
proposed FEC, the expansion or construction of new SGPD facilities would not be necessary for the SGPD
to provide an adequate level of service to the City. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less-than-
significant impacts related to police protection services.
12
South Gate Police Department, Captain Darren Sullivan, E-mail Correspondence, February 1, 2011.
taha 2012-090 4.11-9

MITIGATION MEASURES
CONSTRUCTION
Mitigation measure PS2 would apply to this impact.
OPERATIONS
Impacts related to police protection services would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are
required.

CONSTRUCTION
Impacts related to police protection services were determined to be significant without mitigation.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures PS2 would reduce this impact to less than significant.
OPERATIONS
Impacts related to police protection services were determined to be less than significant without mitigation.
PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Federal
There are no federal public school regulations applicable to the proposed project.
State
California Government Code Section 65995. California Government Code Section 65995 found in Title 7,
Chapter 4.9 of the California Government Code authorizes school districts to collect impact fees from
developers of new residential and commercial/industrial building space. Senate Bill 50 (SB 50) amended
Government Code Section 65995 in 1998. Under the provisions of SB 50, schools can collect fees to offset
costs associated with increasing school capacity as a result of development. LAUSD determines the fees in
accordance with California Government Code Section 65995 annually, and publishes them in their school fee
justification study. The proposed project would not be subject to applicable fees determined by LAUSD per
California Government Code Section 65995 as it is the construction of a new community college satellite
campus.
Local
taha 2012-090 4.11-10

and Service Systems Element goal related to public schools is to “enhance the community with an
educational infrastructure that offers diverse, high-quality educational opportunities to residents of all ages,
and enhances community.” While California Government Code Section 53094 includes provisions for
policies of the City’s General Plan related to public schools are identified in Table 4.11-5.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Objective PF 3.1 Ensure all residents have access to high-quality education.
Policy P.1 The City will work with the LAUSD and other school districts to provide a high level of public
education to all residents in South Gate and to address issues of mutual concern.
Policy P.2 The City will work with the LAUSD to anticipate potential increases in the City’s population
and the impact on school enrollment.
Policy P.4 Prior to issuance of any certificates of occupancy, the City will require project applicants to
submit evidence that legally required school-related development fees have been paid per
the current mitigation program established by the applicable school district.
Objective PF 3.3: Support and enhance development of the ELAC as an important community asset, while
reducing its traffic impacts.
Policy P.1 The City will work with the ELAC to plan the expansion of the campus in a way that meets the
vision for the Community College District contained in the Community Design Element.
Policy P.2 The City will support the continued use and expansion of the ELAC, recognizing the positive
role that the college plays in the City.
Policy P.3 The City will maintain a collaborative relationship with the LACCD and the administrators in
the ELAC. The City will work with the College to maximize the use of college services and
facilities by the public, particularly for young people, families and children.
Policy P.4 The City will work with the LACCD to rename the East Los Angeles Community College to
“South Gate Community College.
EXISTING SETTING
The LAUSD, Downey Unified School District (DUSD), Paramount Unified School District (PUSD), and
Lynwood Unified School District (LUSD) provide public K-12 education services to the residents of South
Gate. LAUSD operates 19 school in City, including one primary center, 11 elementary schools, three middle
schools, two high schools, one continuation school, and one adult education center. The LAUSD South Gate
Community Adult School was formerly located on the project site. With the exception of Hollydale
Elementary School which is administered by the PUSD, all the schools located in South Gate are
administered by LAUSD. South Gate also has a limited number of residents that attend schools in the DUSD,
PUSD, and LUSD. 13 Table 4.11-6 lists public schools located within a one-mile radius of the project site,
and Figure 4.11-2 shows the locations of these schools.
The existing SGEC is located at 2340 Firestone Boulevard in the City of South Gate and provides local
residents access to two-year college educational services and vocational training. The existing facility is not
sufficient for the growing southeast Los Angeles County population, nor does it meet the demand for greater
educational access to its residents.
13
City of South Gate, South Gate General Plan, December 2009.
taha 2012-090 4.11-11

TABLE 4.11-6: PUBLIC SCHOOLS WITHIN ONE MILE OF THE PROJECT SITE
Address 2009-2010 Student Distance from Project
School Name (City) Enrollment Site (Miles)
ELEMENTARY
92nd Street 9211 Grape St. (Los Angeles) 906 0.70
Graham 8407 S. Fir Ave. (Los Angeles) 755 0.70
Independence 8435 Victoria Ave. (South Gate) 787 1.0
Liberty Boulevard 2728 Liberty Blvd. (South Gate) 788 0.21
Stanford Avenue 2833 Illinois Ave. (South Gate) 939 0.60
Stanford Primary Center 3020 Kansas Ave. (South Gate) 207 0.67
State Street 3211 Santa Ana St. (South Gate) 951 1.0
Walnut Park 2642 E. Olive St. (Huntington Park) 969 0.60
MIDDLE
Southeast Middle 2560 Tweedy Blvd. (South Gate) 1,356 0.90
SENIOR HIGH
Jordan High 2265 E.103rd St. (Los Angeles) 1,547 0.90
South Gate High 3351 Firestone Blvd. (South Gate) 3,289 1.0
South East High 2720 Tweedy Blvd. (South Gate) 2,855 0.90
SOURCE: California Department of Education, Dataquest, 2011 and TAHA, 2013.
impact related to public schools if it would:
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for public schools.
IMPACTS
CONSTRUCTION
Construction of the proposed project would result in no impacts related to public schools. Therefore, no
further discussion of construction impacts is necessary.
OPERATIONS
project site. The proposed project is intended to accommodate existing and projected student enrollment at
the SGEC campus, and would not generate a school aged population. Accordingly, implementation of the
proposed project would not create the need for new or expanded school facilities to be constructed; rather the
proposed project would address the existing demand for higher education. Therefore, no impact related to
public schools would occur.
taha 2012-090 4.11-12

UPRR
PACIFIC BLVD
1
RIGHT-
NADEAU ST
SANTA FE AVE
OF-W
BROADW
AY
AY
LACMTA BLUE LINE
SANTA AN
A ST 4
PROJECT SITE
2
LIBERTY
BLVD
3
MANCHESTER AVE
1
5
UPRR RIGHT-
OF-WAY
FIR AVE
1 FIRESTONE
BLVD
8
IA AVE
92ND ST
6 2
VICTOR
4
ALAM
3 7
EDA S
T
97TH ST
9
LON
ST
G BE
STATE
TWEEDY BL
10 VD
GRANDEE AVE
ACH
CENTURY BLVD 11
BLVD
103RD ST 12
LEGEND: Project Site
# Public Schools # Public Parks

1. Walnut Park Elementary School 1. Col. Leon Washington Park
2. Graham Elementary School 2. Caesar Chavez Park
3. Liberty Boulevard Elementary School 3. Stanford Avenue Park
4. State Street Elementary School 4. State Street Park
5. Independence Elementary School
6. 92nd Street Elementary School
7. Stanford Avenue Elementary School
8. South Gate Elementary School # Public Library
9. Stanford Primary Center
10. Southeast Middle School 1. Graham Public Library N
11. Southeast High School Approx.
Scale
12. David Starr Jordan High School
0 1000 2000
taha 2012-090
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report PUBLIC SCHOOLS, PARKS, AND LIBRARIES
MITIGATION MEASURES
CONSTRUCTION
No impacts related to public schools would occur. No mitigation measures are required.
OPERATIONS
No impacts related to public schools would occur. No mitigation measures are required.

CONSTRUCTION
No impacts related to public schools would occur.
OPERATIONS
No impacts related to public schools would occur.
PARKS AND OTHER PUBLIC SERVICES
Federal
There are no federal parks and other public services regulations applicable to the proposed project.
State
Quimby Act. The Quimby Act was established by the California State Legislature in 1965 and codified as
California Government Code Section 66477. The Quimby Act allows the legislative body of a city or
county, by ordinance, to require the dedication of land or impose a requirement of the payment of fees in lieu
thereof, or a combination of both, for park or recreational purposes as a condition to the approval of a
tentative tract map or parcel map. The City of South Gate does not have a Quimby fee program. 14
Local
Los Angeles County Code (LACC). LACC Chapter 22.72 is the Los Angeles County Library Facilities
Mitigation Fee. The purpose of the Library Facilities Mitigation Fee is to implement certain goals and
policies of the Los Angeles County General Plan and to mitigate any adverse impacts of increased residential
development upon public library facilities as required by CEQA. The proposed project would not be subject
to the Library Facilities Mitigation Fee as it is the construction of a new community college satellite campus.
City of South Gate General Plan Green City Element. The City of South Gate General Plan Green City
Element provides policy guidance to ensure the provision of parks and recreational facilities in the City. The
Green City Element goal related to parks is to provide for an extensive, high-quality system of parks, civic
plazas, and open space in the City. While California Government Code Section 53094 includes provisions for
14
City of South Gate, Paul Adams, Director of Parks & Recreation, e-mail correspondence, January 25, 2011.
taha 2012-090 4.11-14

policies of the City’s General Plan related to parks, recreation, and libraries are identified in Table 4.11-7.
TABLE 4.11-7: APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RELATED TO PARKS,
RECREATION, AND LIBRARIES
GREEN CITY ELEMENT
Objective GC 1.2 Expand public space in the City by establishing new parks, civic plazas, and open space.
Policy P.1 New parkland, civic plazas, and open space will be created as funding and other opportunities
become available.
Policy P.2 The City will pursue innovative ways to provide parks and open space, including developing
green roofs on buildings, reclaiming previously developed land, targeting vacant lots for use as
passive parks or community gardens, or other strategies.
Policy P.3 The City will pursue joint use agreements with the LAUSD, LACCD, and ELAC.
Policy P.4 Wherever feasible, development of new park facilities will be located in areas of the City currently
underserved by parks.
Policy P.5 The City will collect land dedications or in lieu fees from new development for the provision of parks
and recreation facilities, in pursuit of a desired parkland standard of 3 acres per 1,000 residents, as
allowed by the California Quimby Act. The City will prefer the physical provision of park and recreation
infrastructure to in lieu fees, and will administer a Parkland Deduction Fee program through which
new development can provide parkland in lieu of certain development fees.
Policy P.6 The City will expand the amount of open space by establishing a series of civic plazas. In
particular, the following areas should be prioritized for plazas:
• Civic Center
• Gateway Transit Center
• Community College District
• Tweedy/Atlantic Education Center
• Tweedy Boulevard
• Imperial District, near the intersection of Imperial Boulevard and Garfield Avenue
• Hollydale Village
City of South Gate Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The purpose of the Parks and Recreation Master
Plan is to provide a realistic guide for the creative, orderly development and management of recreation
facilities and programs for the City of South Gate. The Master Plan includes recommendations and actions
that should be undertaken to help the City develop and improve adequate recreation facilities to meet
community needs and demands.
EXISTING SETTING
Parks and Recreation
The South Gate Department of Parks and Recreation (SGDPR) provides park and recreation services to
residents of the City of South Gate. The SGDPR operates and maintains nine parks and one community
resource center that total approximately 170 acres of land. 15 Table 4.11-8 lists the City parks and recreation
facilities, their address, size, and distance from the project site.
15
City of South Gate, Parks and Recreation Master Plan, November 2008.
taha 2012-090 4.11-15

TABLE 4.11-8: PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES SERVING THE CITY OF SOUTH GATE
Distance from
Park Size Project Site
Park Address (acres) (miles)
CITY OF SOUTH GATE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
South Gate Park 4900 Southern Ave. 96.8 2.2
Hollydale Regional Park 5400 Monroe Ave. 56.0 3.7
Circle Park 10129 Garfield Ave. 4.0 3.4
Cesar Chavez Park 2541 Southern Ave. 9.0 0.2
Hollydale Community Recreation Center Park 12221 Industrial Ave. 2.2 4.4
Stanford Park 2715 Illinois Ave. 0.19 0.4
Gardendale Tot Park 5840 Gardendale St. 0.45 4.2
State Street Park 9200 State St. 0.8 0.8
Triangle Park Atlantic/Southern Aves. intersection 0.3 2.6
Westside Community Resource Center 9200 State Street n/a 0.8
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
Colonel Leon Washington Park 8908 S. Maie Ave. 13.2 0.9
SOURCE: City of South Gate, Parks and Recreation Master Plan, November 2008.
In addition to parks located in the City of South Gate, residents of the City may also utilize Colonel Leon H.
Washington Park, a regional park managed by the Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation
manages and located in the City of Los Angeles. Figure 4.11-2, above, shows the locations of parks and
recreational facilities serving the City of South Gate.
Based on the City of South Gate’s 2010 resident population, the City maintains an open space-to-population
ratio of approximately 1.8 acres per 1,000 residents.16 The City’s open space-to-residents ratio goal is three
acres per 1,000 residents.17 Accordingly, the City has a current deficiency of approximately 113 acres
(283 acres desired – 170 acres existing). A goal of the City of South Gate Parks and Recreation Master Plan
is to plan for new parks to alleviate this deficiency.
Libraries
The Los Angeles County Public Library (LACPL) provides library services to residents of the City of South
Gate. The LACPL system is comprised of 88 community libraries throughout Los Angeles County. Two of
the 88 LACPL public libraries are located within the City of South Gate: the Hollydale and the Leland R.
Weaver Library. An additional library, the Graham Public Library, located at 1900 Firestone Boulevard in
the unincorporated community of Florence, is 0.66 miles west of the project site. As shown in Figure 4.11-2
above, the Graham Public Library is the only public library within a one-mile radius of the project site.
Each LACCD campus has an on-campus library available for student use. Students enrolled at each
community college campus can only use library materials originating from the campus at which they are
enrolled. Student requests for library materials located at other campus libraries are granted based upon the
need and availability of the material on the campus where it is currently stored. Students at the existing
SGEC can check out books from the ELAC and existing SGEC library. Currently, the ELAC library has
approximately 110,000 library books, 150 periodical subscriptions, and various electronic databases
16
Based on the City of South Gate’s 2010 population of 94,396 residents. United States Census Bureau, State and County
QuickFacts, South Gate (city), California, available at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0673080.html accessed
November 26, 2012.
17
City of South Gate, Paul Adams, Director of Parks & Recreation, E-mail Correspondence, January 6, 2011.
taha 2012-090 4.11-16

available for students of ELAC and existing SGEC. 18 The existing SGEC library currently has
approximately 3,000 books available. 19
impact related to parks and other public services if it would:
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for parks and/or other
public services.
IMPACTS
CONSTRUCTION
Construction of the proposed project would result in no impacts related to public parks and public libraries.
Therefore, no further discussion of construction impacts is necessary.
OPERATIONS
Public Parks
The proposed project would not increase the residential population in the City, but would include a large
open space at the center of the campus where students may gather. The proposed open space would include
active and passive recreation space, amenities for performances and ceremonies, study areas, public art,
greenery, and shade. Since the proposed project would include an open space component and would not
increase the population of the City, operation of the proposed project would not create additional demand for
public parks or recreational facilities such that the City would need to expand existing or construct new park
and recreation facilities to maintain an adequate level of service. Therefore, the proposed project would
result in less-than-significant impacts related to public parks.
Public Libraries
The proposed project would not increase the residential population in the City. Students of the proposed
project would primarily use the library materials and services offered by the proposed project’s library and
the existing ELAC campus library. Students attending the proposed FEC could augment their need for
library materials and services by patronizing the local libraries serving the City. However, since the
proposed project would not increase the residential population in the City, operation of the proposed project
is not anticipated to impair LACPL service levels such that the City would need to expand existing or
construct new libraries to maintain an adequate level of service. Therefore, the proposed project would result
in less-than-significant impacts related to public libraries.
18
East Los Angeles College, General Information - Main Campus, Available at: http://www.elac.edu/departments
/library/index.asp?links=maincampus/generalinfo_mc.htm, Accessed on January 6, 2011.
19
South Gate Education Center Library, Gabriella Lopez, Librarian, Written Correspondence, January 25, 2011.
taha 2012-090 4.11-17

MITIGATION MEASURES
CONSTRUCTION
No impacts related to public parks or public libraries would occur. No mitigation measures are required.
OPERATIONS
Impacts related to public parks or public libraries would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are
required.

CONSTRUCTION
No impacts related to public parks and public libraries would occur.
OPERATIONS
Impacts related to public parks and public libraries were determined to be less than significant without
mitigation.
taha 2012-090 4.11-18

2013 Firestone Education Center Master Plan 4.12 Transportation & Traffic
4.12 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

This section provides an overview of transportation and traffic conditions in the project area and evaluates
the construction and operational impacts associated with the proposed project. Topics addressed include the
circulation system, congestion management plan, vehicle and pedestrian site access, and public transit,
bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. This section utilizes the 2013 Firestone Educational Center Master Plan
Traffic Impact Study prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers. The traffic study is included in its
entirety in Appendix E.
Federal
There are no federal transportation or traffic regulations applicable to the proposed project.
State
Congestion Management Program (CMP). To address the increasing public concern that traffic congestion
is impacting the quality of life and economic vitality of the State of California, the CMP was enacted by
Proposition 111. The intent of the CMP is to provide the analytical basis for transportation decisions through
the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) process. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (Metro), the local CMP agency, has established an approach to implement the
statutory requirements of the CMP. The approach includes designating a highway network that includes all
State highways and principal arterials within the County and monitoring the network’s congestion.
Local
City of South Gate General Plan 2035 Mobility Element (City’s Mobility Element). The City’s Mobility
Element sets forth the plan for mobility and circulation within the City. One of the visions for the City is to
put people first by calming traffic where appropriate, and encouraging alternative modes of transportation
such as walking, bicycling, and use of public transit. The following key elements of the City’s Mobility
Element relate to the project site and immediate vicinity:
• Firestone Boulevard is classified as a Boulevard (Primary Arterial) and ultimately will be constructed to
provide a right-of-way cross section width of between 104 and 116 feet. In the case of Firestone
Boulevard, an overall right-of-way width of between 104 and 116 feet (i.e., between 52-foot and 58-foot
½ right-of-way width) is envisioned which ultimately would require between two-feet and eight-feet of
dedication along both sides. Once the roadway dedications occur, three travel lanes in each direction
with associated raised median islands and left-turn lanes could be constructed.
• Santa Fe Avenue is classified as a Street (Collector) and ranges from between 80 and 84 feet of overall
right-of-way (with roadway width ranges between 56 and 60 feet). This cross section provides for two
lanes in each direction along with installation of bicycle lanes in lieu of on-street parking where
appropriate (i.e., Santa Fe Avenue is designated for implementation of a Class II – Bike Lane between
Independence/Ardmore Avenues and Southern Avenue). Based on discussions with the City of South
Gate, the existing on-street parking along the east side of Santa Fe Avenue will likely remain while a
bicycle lane may be installed on the west side of Santa Fe Avenue along the FEC project frontage. The
existing roadway width along the Santa Fe Avenue project frontage is approximately 74 feet which
significant exceeds the City's Mobility Element roadway standard.
taha 2012-090 4.12-1

EXISTING SETTING
Circulation System
The project site is located in the southeast portion of the County of Los Angeles within the City of South
Gate. Specifically, the project site is located at the northwestern corner of the Firestone Boulevard/Santa Fe
Avenue intersection at 2525 Firestone Boulevard. Firestone Boulevard is the major arterial serving the
project site connecting to the Harbor Freeway (I-110) and the Long Beach Freeway (I-710). Santa Fe
Avenue is classified as a collector in the City’s Mobility Element.
Roadway Classifications. The City of South Gate utilizes the roadway categories recognized by regional,
State, and federal transportation agencies. There are four categories in the roadway hierarchy, ranging from
freeways with the highest capacity to two-lane undivided roadways with the lowest capacity. The roadway
categories are summarized as follows:
• Freeways are limited-access and high speed travel ways included in the state and federal highway
systems. Their purpose is to carry regional through-traffic. Access is provided by interchanges with
typical spacing of one mile or greater. No local access is provided to adjacent land uses. The Glenn
Anderson Freeway (I-105), I-710 and I-110 are located approximately two to three miles to the south,
east, and west, respectively, of the project site.
• Arterial roadways are major streets that primarily serve through-traffic and provide access to abutting
properties as a secondary function. Arterials are generally designed with two to six travel lanes and their
major intersections are signalized. This roadway type is divided into two categories: primary and
secondary arterials. Primary arterials are typically four-or-more lane roadways and serve both local and
regional through-traffic. Secondary arterials are typically two-to-four lane streets that service local and
commute traffic.
• Collector roadways are streets that provide access and traffic circulation within residential and non-
residential (e.g., commercial and industrial) areas. Collector roadways connect local streets to arterials
and are typically designed with two through travel lanes (i.e., one through travel lane in each direction)
that may accommodate on-street parking. They may also provide access to abutting properties.
• Local roadways distribute traffic within a neighborhood, or similar adjacent neighborhoods, and are not
intended for use as a through-street or a link between higher capacity facilities such as collector or
arterial roadways. Local streets are fronted by residential uses and do not typically serve commercial
uses.
A review of the characteristics (e.g., street classification, number of travel lanes, etc.) of important roadways
within the vicinity of the project site and study area is summarized in Table 4.12-1.
taha 2012-090 4.12-2

2013Firestone Education Center Master Plan 4.12 Transportation & Traffic
TABLE 4.12-1: EXISTING ROADWAY DESCRIPTIONS

Number of
Lanes Median Parking Restrictions /b/ Speed
Primary Street Segments Classification NB/EB SB/WB Types /a/ NB/EB SB/WB Limit
ALAMEDA STREET
From Nadeau St. to Firestone Blvd. Primary Arterial 2 2 DY NPAT NS 6:30 a.m. – 8:00 a.m. 40
nd
From Firestone Blvd. to 92 St./Southern Ave. Primary Arterial 2 2 DY NPAT NS 6:30 a.m. – 8:00 a.m. 40
nd
From 92 St./Southern Ave. to Tweedy Blvd. Primary Arterial 2 2 DY NPAT NSAT 40
CALDEN AVENUE
NP M-R 4:00 p.m. – 10:00 p.m.
From Firestone Blvd. to Southern Ave. Local 1 1 None (permit) NP W 8:00 a.m. – 3:30 p.m. 25
NP T 8:00 a.m. – 3:30 p.m.
SANTA FE AVENUE
From Nadeau St. to Ardmore Ave. Collector 1 1 DY/RM PA PA 35
From Ardmore Ave. to Southern Ave. Collector 2 2 DY PA NP W 3:00 a.m. – 8:00 a.m. PA NP 8:00 a.m. – 4:30 p.m. 35
TRUBA AVENUE
PA / TANP
From Southern Ave. to Tweedy Blvd. Collector 1 1 None NP T 8:00 a.m. – 3:30 p.m. 35
10:00 p.m. – 6:00 a.m. nightly
PACIFIC BOULEVARD
From Broadway to Poplar Pl Primary Arterial 2 2 DY PA PA 35
LONG BEACH BOULEVARD
From Poplar Pl to Tweedy Blvd. Primary Arterial 2 2 DY 2hr 7:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. 2hr 7:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. 35
STATE STREET
NP W 3:00a.m. – 8:00 a.m. NP R 3:00 a.m. – 8:00 a.m.
From Santa Ana St. to Southern Ave. Secondary Arterial 2 2 DY 35
2hr 7:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. 2hr 7:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m.
CALIFORNIA AVENUE
From Santa Ana St. to Southern Ave. Secondary Arterial 2 2 DY PA PA 35
INDEPENDENCE AVENUE
From Long Beach Blvd. to Otis St. Collector 1 1 DY NSAT PA 35
ARDMORE AVENUE
From Santa Fe Ave. to Otis St. Collector 1 1 DY PA NSAT 35
ORCHARD PLACE
From Santa Fe Ave. to Mountain View Ave. Local 1 1 None NSAT NP W 3:00 a.m. – 8:00 a.m. 25
taha 2012-090 4.12-3

2013Firestone Education Center Master Plan 4.12 Transportation & Traffic
TABLE 4.12-1: EXISTING ROADWAY DESCRIPTIONS

Number of
Lanes Median Parking Restrictions /b/ Speed
Primary Street Segments Classification NB/EB SB/WB Types /a/ NB/EB SB/WB Limit
FIRESTONE BOULEVARD
NS 7:00 a.m. – 9:00 a.m., NS 7:00 a.m. – 9:00 a.m.,
From Elm St. to Ivy St. Primary Arterial 3 3 DY/2LT 4:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m., 4:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m., 35
1hr 9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. 1hr 9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.
NS 7:00 a.m. – 9:00 a.m., NS 7:00 a.m. – 9:00 a.m.,
From Ivy St. to Alameda St. Primary Arterial 3 3 DY 4:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m., 4:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m., 35
1hr 9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. 1hr 9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.
NSAT NSAT
From Alameda St. to Atlantic Ave. Primary Arterial 2 2 DY/2LT 35
2hr 9:00 a.m.- 6:00 p.m. 2hr 9:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m.
NP 6:00 a.m. – 9:00 a.m., NP 6:00 a.m. – 9:00 a.m.,
From Atlantic Ave. to Rayo Ave. Primary Arterial 3 3 DY/2LT 3:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m., 3:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m., 35
2hr 9:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m. 2hr 9:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m.
From Rayo Ave. to Garfield Ave. Primary Arterial 3 3 DY NSAT NSAT 35
SOUTHERN AVENUE
From Alameda St. to California Ave. Collector 1 1 DY PA NSAT 25
TWEEDY AVENUE
From Alameda St. to California Ave. Secondary Arterial 2 2 DY PA PA 30
Note: NB: Northbound; SB: Southbound; WB: Westbound; EB: Eastbound
/a/ Median Types include Double Yellow (DY), Raised Median (RM), and Two-way Left Turn Pocket (2LT)
/b/Parking restrictions include Tow-Away No Stopping Any Time (TANSAT), No Stopping Any Time (NSAT), No Parking Any Time (NPAT), Red Curb (RC), No Parking (NP), Metered Parking (MP), Change in
Parking Restrictions (/), No Parking Restrictions (None), No Stopping (NS), Parking Available (PA), Green Curb (GC), Truck Speed – 25 mph (TS), Tow-Away No Parking (TANP).
SOURCE: Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers, Traffic Impact Study 2013 Firestone Education Center, November 21, 2013.
taha 2012-090 4.12-4

Study Intersections. A total of 31 study intersections in the vicinity of the project site have been evaluated for
the potential to experience significant traffic impacts due to the proposed project. The location of the proposed
project in relation to the study locations and surrounding street system is presented in Figure 4.12-1. The
31 study intersections listed below provide local access to the study area and define the extent of the boundaries
for the traffic impact investigation.
1. Fir Ave./Firestone Blvd. 17. Long Beach Blvd./Firestone Blvd.

2. Ivy St.-Manchester Ave./Firestone Blvd. 18. Long Beach Blvd./Southern Ave.
3. Alameda St./Nadeau St. 19. Long Beach Blvd./Tweedy Blvd.
4. Alameda St./Firestone Blvd. 20. Garden View Ave./Firestone Blvd.
5. Alameda St./92nd St.-Southern Ave. 21. State St./Santa Ana St.
6. Alameda St./Tweedy Blvd. 22. State St./Independence Ave.
7. Project Driveway-Calden Ave./Firestone Blvd. 23. State St./Ardmore Ave.
8. Santa Fe Ave./Project Driveway-Ardmore Ave. 24. State St./Firestone Blvd.
9. Santa Fe Ave./Project Driveway-Orchard Place 25. California Ave./Firestone Blvd.
10. Santa Fe Ave./Firestone Blvd. 26. Otis St./Firestone Blvd.
11. Santa Fe Ave.-Truba Ave./Southern Ave. 27. Rheem Ave.-Alexander Ave./Firestone Blvd.
12. Pacific Blvd./Broadway 28. Atlantic Ave./Firestone Blvd.
13. Long Beach Blvd./Poplar Place-Seville Ave. 29. Rayo Ave./Firestone Blvd.
14. Long Beach Blvd./Independence Ave. (west leg) 30. I-710 Southbound Ramps/Firestone Blvd.
15. Long Beach Blvd./Independence Ave. (east leg) 31. I-710 Northbound Ramps/Firestone Blvd.
16. Long Beach Blvd./Ardmore Ave.
Of the 31 study intersections analyzed, 27 intersections are currently traffic signal controlled. The existing
roadway configurations and intersection controls at the 31 study intersections are displayed in Figure 4.12-2.
Existing Traffic Volumes
Intersection Manual Traffic Counts. Manual traffic counts of vehicular turning movements were
conducted at each of the 31 study intersections during the weekday morning (AM) and afternoon (PM)
commuter periods to determine the peak hour traffic volumes. The manual traffic counts at the study
intersections were conducted from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. to determine the weekday AM peak commuter hour
and from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. to determine the weekday PM peak commuter hour. The traffic counts were
conducted when the existing SGEC facility and local schools in the area were in session. Traffic volumes at
the study intersections show the weekday morning and afternoon peak periods typically associated with peak
hours in the metropolitan area.
A review of each of the traffic counts was conducted to determine the highest one-hour period of traffic
volume for each time period surveyed, based on 15-minute increments (e.g., 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., 7:15 a.m.
to 8:15 a.m., etc.). The resulting existing weekday AM and PM peak hour manual counts of turning vehicles
at the 31 study intersections are summarized in Table 4.12-2. The existing traffic volumes at the study
intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours are shown in Figures 4.12-3 and 4.12-4,
respectively.
Existing Intersection Operating Conditions
Existing AM and PM peak hour operating conditions for the 31 study intersections were evaluated using the
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology for signalized intersections and the methodology
outlined in Chapters 19 and 20 of the Highway Capacity Manual 2010 (HCM 2010) for unsignalized
intersections, based on City of South Gate traffic study guidelines.
taha 2012-090 4.12-5

SANTA FE AVE
STATE S
ATLA
T
OTIS ST
3
12
NTIC
AVE
PROJECT SITE BROADW
AY
21
RD
UP
SANTA AN
A ST
A
RR
RI
710
NE
13
RI
G
O
14
HT
B
1 2
JA
LIBERTY
-O
BLVD
8 15
F-
22
W
IVY ST
AY
9 16
4 23 UPRR RIG
7 HT-OF-WAY
10 17
UPRR
20
METRO BLUE LINE
24
25 FIRESTO
NE BLVD
92ND ST
RIGH
5 11 26 27
18
28
FIR AVE
T-OF
LON
SOUTHE
RN AVE
TRUBA
29
CALIFORN
-WAY
G BE
30
31
ALEXAMD
95TH ST
AVE
ACH
E
AV
IA AVE
YO
6
BLVD
RA
ER AVE
19
TWEEDY
BLVD
LEGEND:
Project Site # Study Intersections
1. Fir Avenue/Firestone Boulevard 12. Pacific Boulevard/Broadway 22. State Street/Independence Avenue
2. Ivy Street/Manchester Avenue-Firestone Boulevard 13. Long Beach Boulevard/Poplar Place-Seville Avenue 23. State Street/Ardmore Avenue
3. Alameda Street/Nadeau Street 14 . Long Beach Boulevard/Independence Avenue (west leg) 24. State Street/Firestone Boulevard
4. Alameda Street/Firestone Boulevard 15. Long Beach Boulevard/Independence Avenue (east leg) 25. California Avenue/Firestone Boulevard
5. Alameda Street/92nd Street-Southern Avenue 16. Long Beach Boulevard/Ardmore Avenue 26. Otis Street/Firestone Boulevard
6. Alameda Street/Tweedy Boulevard 17. Long Beach Boulevard/Firestone Boulevard 27. Alexander Avenue/Firestone Boulevard
7. Project Driveway-Calden Avenue/Firestone Boulevard 18. Long Beach Boulevard/Southern Avenue 28. Atlantic Avenue/Firestone Boulevard
8. Santa Fe Avenue/Ardmore Avenue 19. Long Beach Boulevard/Tweedy Boulevard 29. Rayo Avenue/Firestone Boulevard
9. Santa Fe Avenue/Orchard Place 20. Garden View Avenue/Firestone Boulevard 30. Interstate 710 SB On-Off Ramps/Firestone Boulevard N
10. Santa Fe Avenue/Firestone Boulevard 21. State Street/Santa Ana Avenue 31. Interstate 710 NB On-Off Ramps/Firestone Boulevard Approx.
Scale
11. Santa Fe Avenue-Truba Avenue/Southern Avenue
0 1200 2400
SOURCE: Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers, 2013. Feet
taha 2012-090
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report STUDY INTERSECTIONS
LEGEND:
[B] No Right-Turn on Red Not to N
Project Site Unsignalized Intersection SCALE
Stop Sign [A] Free-Flow Movement [C] Overlapping Phase
SOURCE: Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers, 2013.
taha 2012-090
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report EXISTING ROADWAY CONFIGURATIONS AND
INTERSECTION CONTROLS
TABLE 4.12-2: EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
No. Intersection Date Direction Began Volume Began Volume
1 Fir Ave./Firestone Blvd. /a/ Nov/Dec NB 185 131
2010 SB 232 115
7:15 5:00
EB 964 1,372
WB 1,038 908
2 Ivy St.-Manchester Ave./ Nov/Dec NB 26 45
Firestone Blvd. /a/ 2010 SB 50 113
7:00 5:00
EB 1,013 1,475
WB 1,007 798
3 Alameda St./Nadeau St. /a/ Nov/Dec NB 1,329 1,071
2010 SB 751 1,286
7:15 4:45
EB 780 1,012
WB 950 868
4 Alameda St./Firestone Blvd. /a/ Nov/Dec NB 1,192 1,085
2010 SB 839 1,194
7:15 5:00
EB 885 1,316
WB 1,342 955
5 Alameda St./92nd St-Southern Nov/Dec NB 991 967
Ave. /a/ 2010 SB 1,033 1,380
7:15 4:45
EB 638 698
WB 512 469
6 Alameda St./Tweedy Blvd. /a/ Nov/Dec NB 964 997
2010 SB 1,180 1,488
7:15 5:00
EB 0 0
WB 617 603
7 Project Driveway-Calden Ave./ Nov/Dec NB 143 124
Firestone Blvd. /a/ 2010 SB 20 57
7:15 5:00
EB 844 1,340
WB 1,447 1,051
8 Santa Fe Ave./Project Nov 2009 NB 782 667
Driveway-Ardmore Ave. /b/ SB 495 872
7:00 5:00
EB 0 0
WB 225 119
9 Santa Fe Ave./Project Nov/Dec NB 717 654
Driveway-Orchard Place /a/ 2010 SB 524 830
7:00 5:00
EB 0 0
WB 73 41
10 Santa Fe Ave./Firestone Nov/Dec NB 662 562
Blvd. /a/ 2010 SB 647 851
7:15 5:00
EB 971 1,503
WB 1,496 1,022
11 Santa Fe Ave.-Truba Nov/Dec NB 410 315
Ave./Southern Ave. /a/ 2010 SB 456 581
7:00 4:15
EB 444 465
WB 400 251
12 Pacific Blvd./Broadway /a/ Nov/Dec NB 1,141 1,014
2010 SB 463 936
7:15 4:45
EB 344 512
WB 287 252
13 Long Beach Blvd./Poplar Place- Nov/Dec NB 1,137 1,181
Seville Ave. /a/ 2010 SB 474 961
7:15 4:45
EB 40 20
WB 387 224
14 Long Beach Blvd./ Nov/Dec NB 1,079 1,107
Independence Ave. 2010 SB 776 1,125
(West Leg) /a/ 7:15 4:45
EB 89 119
WB 24 37
15 Long Beach Blvd./ Nov/Dec NB 7:15 1,186 4:45 1,188
taha 2012-090 4.12-8


Independence Ave. 2010 SB 755 1,110
(East Leg) /a/ EB 0 0
WB 295 188
16 Long Beach Blvd./Ardmore Nov/Dec NB 1,051 1,146
Ave. /a/ 2010 SB 952 1,223
7:15 4:45
EB 162 218
WB 207 110
17 Long Beach Blvd./Firestone Nov/Dec NB 1,056 913
Blvd. /a/ 2010 SB 869 1,080
7:15 5:00
EB 931 1,537
WB 1,470 1,175
18 Long Beach Blvd./Southern Nov/Dec NB 1,135 960
Ave. /a/ 2010 SB 786 916
7:15 4:00
EB 364 491
WB 196 114
19 Long Beach Blvd./Tweedy Nov/Dec NB 876 980
Blvd. /a/ 2010 SB 972 954
7:00 4:45
EB 771 663
WB 873 666
20 Garden View Ave./Firestone Nov/Dec NB 85 33
Blvd. /a/ 2010 SB 48 35
7:15 5:00
EB 1,046 1,505
WB 1,519 1,262
21 State St./Santa Ana St. /b/ Nov 2009 NB 677 614
SB 609 949
7:15 4:45
EB 389 470
WB 449 485
22 State St./Independence Ave. /a/ Nov/Dec NB 701 612
2010 SB 640 727
7:15 5:00
EB 180 157
WB 195 138
23 State St./Ardmore Ave. /a/ Nov/Dec NB 660 596
2010 SB 750 761
7:15 5:00
EB 116 138
WB 186 111
24 State St./Firestone Blvd. /a/ Nov/Dec NB 553 557
2010 SB 616 653
7:00 5:00
EB 1,158 1,651
WB 1,436 1,331
25 California Ave./Firestone Nov 2009 NB 743 595
Blvd. /b/ SB 671 642
7:00 4:45
EB 1,190 1,490
WB 1,383 1,229
26 Otis St./Firestone Blvd. /b/ Nov 2009 NB 650 462
SB 767 873
7:00 5:00
EB 1,358 1,479
WB 1,482 1,335
27 Rheem Ave.-Alexander Ave./ Nov 2009 NB 420 160
Firestone Blvd. /b/ SB 15 66
7:00 4:30
EB 1,530 1,641
WB 1,197 1,347
28 Atlantic Ave./Firestone Nov/Dec NB 727 685
Blvd. /a/ 2010 SB 1,125 1,308
7:15 5:00
EB 1,505 1,643
WB 1,630 1,656
29 Rayo Ave./Firestone Blvd. /a/ Nov/Dec NB 677 672
7:00 4:30
2010 SB 25 106
taha 2012-090 4.12-9


EB 2,069 2,146
WB 2,117 2,228
30 I-710 Southbound Nov 2009 NB 0 0
Ramps/Firestone Blvd. /b/ SB 736 910
7:00 4:45
EB 2,738 2,867
WB 2,352 2,535
31 I-710 Northbound Nov 2009 NB 544 1,270
Ramps/Firestone Blvd. /b/ SB 0 0
7:15 4:45
EB 2,144 2,654
WB 2,522 2,283
Note: NB: Northbound; SB: Southbound; WB: Westbound; EB: Eastbound
/a/ Counts conducted by City Traffic Counters
/b/ Counts conducted by National Data & Surveying Services
SOURCE: Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers, Traffic Impact Study 2013 Firestone Education Center, November 21, 2013.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Method of Analysis. In conformance with the City of South Gate and
Los Angeles County CMP requirements, existing weekday AM and PM peak hour operating conditions for
the key signalized study intersections were evaluated using the ICU method. The ICU methodology is
intended for signalized intersection analyses and estimates the volume-to-capacity (v/c) relationship for an
intersection based on the individual v/c ratios for key conflicting traffic movements.
The ICU numerical value represents the percent signal (green) time, and thus capacity, required by existing
and/or future traffic. The ICU value is the sum of the critical volume to capacity ratios at an intersection; it
is not intended to be indicative of the Level of Service (LOS) of each of the individual turning movements.
It should be noted that the ICU methodology assumes uniform traffic distribution per intersection approach
lane and optimal signal timing. The ICU value translates to a LOS estimate, which is a relative measure of
the intersection performance. The six qualitative categories of LOS have been defined along with the
corresponding ICU value range and are shown in Table 4.12-3.
TABLE 4.12-3: LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS

Level of Intersection Capacity
Service Utilization Value (v/c) Level of Service Description
A ≤0.600 EXCELLENT. No vehicle waits longer than one red light, and no approach phase
is fully used.
B 0.601 – 0.700 VERY GOOD. An occasional approach phase is fully utilized; many drivers begin
to feel somewhat restricted within groups of vehicles.
C 0.701 – 0.800 GOOD. Occasionally drivers may have to wait through more than one red light;
backups may develop behind turning vehicles.
D 0.801 – 0.900 FAIR. Delays may be substantial during portions of the rush hours, but enough
lower volume periods occur to permit clearing of developing lines, preventing
excessive backups.
E 0.901 – 1.000 POOR. Represents the most vehicles intersection approaches can accommodate;
may be long lines of waiting vehicles through several signal cycles.
F > 1.000 FAILURE. Backups from nearby locations or on cross streets may restrict or
prevent movement of vehicles out of the intersection approaches. Potentially
very long delays with continuously increasing queue lengths.
SOURCE: Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers, Traffic Impact Study 2013 Firestone Educational Center Master Plan, November 21, 2013.
taha 2012-090 4.12-10

Not to N
LEGEND: SCALE
Project Site

Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
taha 2012-090
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES - AM PEAK HOUR
Not to N
LEGEND: SCALE
Project Site
taha 2012-090
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES - PM PEAK HOUR
Highway Capacity Manual Method of Analysis (Unsignalized Intersections). The HCM 2010
unsignalized methodologies for two-way stop-controlled (TWSC) and all-way stop-controlled (AWSC)
intersections were utilized for the analysis of the unsignalized intersections. These methodologies estimate
the average control delay for each of the subject movements and determine the LOS for each constrained
movement. Average control delay for any particular movement is a function of the capacity of the approach
and the degree of saturation. The overall average control delay is measured in seconds per vehicle, and the
level of service is then calculated for AWSC intersections as a whole. For TWSC intersections, it should be
noted that level of service is not defined for the major-street approaches or the overall TWSC intersection
because major-street movements with no delays typically result in a weighted average delay that is extremely
low. The six qualitative categories of LOS have been defined along with the corresponding HCM control
delay value range, as shown in Table 4.12-4.
TABLE 4.12-4: LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS

Level of Service Highway Capacity Manual Delay Value (sec/veh) Level of Service Description
A ≤ 10.0 Little or no delay
B > 10.0 and ≤ 15.0 Short traffic delays
C > 15.0 and ≤ 25.0 Average traffic delays
D > 25.0 and ≤ 35.0 Long traffic delays
E > 35.0 and ≤ 50.0 Very long traffic delays
F > 50.0 Severe congestion
Existing Level of Service (LOS) Results. The existing peak hour service level calculations for the 31 study
intersections based on existing traffic volumes and current street geometry is summarized in Table 4.12-5.
As shown, 23 of the 31 study intersections currently operate at acceptable LOS (i.e., LOS D or better) during
the weekday AM and PM peak hours. The following study intersections are currently operating at LOS E or
F during the peak hour(s) shown below under existing conditions:
• Intersection No. 4: Alameda Street/Firestone Boulevard (PM Peak Hour)
• Intersection No. 7: Project Driveway-Calden Avenue/Firestone Boulevard (AM and PM Peak Hours)
• Intersection No. 8: Santa Fe Avenue/Project Driveway-Ardmore Avenue (AM and PM Peak Hours)
• Intersection No. 17: Long Beach Boulevard/Firestone Boulevard (AM and PM Peak Hours)
• Intersection No. 24: State Street//Firestone Boulevard (PM Peak Hour)
• Intersection No. 26: Otis Street/Firestone Boulevard (AM Peak Hour)
• Intersection No. 28: Atlantic Avenue/Firestone Boulevard (AM and PM Peak Hours)
• Intersection No. 31: I-710 Northbound Ramps/Firestone Boulevard (PM Peak Hour)
TABLE 4.12-5: EXISTING SUMMARY OF VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIOS OR DELAY AND LEVELS
OF SERVICE FOR AM AND PM PEAK HOURS
Existing (2012)
NO. Intersection Peak Hour V/C or Delay LOS
1 Fir Avenue/Firestone Boulevard /a/ AM 0.521 A
PM 0.494 A
2 Ivy Street-Manchester Avenue/Firestone Boulevard /a/ AM 0.414 A
PM 0.484 A
3 Alameda Street/Nadeau Street /a/ AM 0.830 D
PM 0.845 D
4 Alameda Street/Firestone Boulevard /a, b/ AM 0.874 D
PM 0.909 E
5 Alameda Street/92nd Street-Southern Avenue /a, b/ AM 0.716 C
PM 0.847 D
6 Alameda Street/Tweedy Boulevard /a, b/ AM 0.759 C
taha 2012-090 4.12-13

TABLE 4.12-5: EXISTING SUMMARY OF VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIOS OR DELAY AND LEVELS
OF SERVICE FOR AM AND PM PEAK HOURS
Existing (2012)
NO. Intersection Peak Hour V/C or Delay LOS
PM 0.839 D
7 Project Driveway-Calden Avenue/Firestone Boulevard /b, c/ AM >50.0 F
PM >50.0 F
8 Santa Fe Avenue/Project Driveway-Ardmore Avenue /b, c/ AM >50.0 F
PM 37.7 E
9 Santa Fe Avenue/Project Driveway-Orchard Place /b, c/ AM 14.2 B
PM 16.4 C
10 Santa Fe Avenue/Firestone Boulevard /b/ AM 0.882 D
PM 0.839 D
11 Santa Fe Avenue-Truba Avenue/Southern Avenue /b, d/ AM 29.87 D
PM 21.98 C
12 Pacific Boulevard/Broadway /a/ AM 0.621 B
PM 0.751 C
13 Long Beach Boulevard/Poplar Place-Seville Avenue /b/ AM 0.603 B
PM 0.561 A
14 Long Beach Boulevard/Independence Avenue (West Leg) /b/ AM 0.495 A
PM 0.543 A
15 Long Beach Boulevard/Independence Avenue (East Leg) /b/ AM 0.625 B
PM 0.565 A
16 Long Beach Boulevard/Ardmore Avenue /b/ AM 0.611 B
PM 0.602 B
17 Long Beach Boulevard/Firestone Boulevard /b/ AM 0.901 E
PM 0.979 E
18 Long Beach Boulevard/Southern Avenue /b/ AM 0.632 B
PM 0.695 B
19 Long Beach Boulevard/Tweedy Boulevard /b/ AM 0.779 C
PM 0.714 C
20 Garden View Avenue/Firestone Boulevard /b/ AM 0.642 B
PM 0.644 B
21 State Street/Santa Ana Street /b/ AM 0.634 B
PM 0.687 B
22 State Street/Independence Avenue /b/ AM 0.659 B
PM 0.624 B
23 State Street/Ardmore Avenue /b/ AM 0.671 B
PM 0.607 B
24 State Street/Firestone Boulevard /b/ AM 0.837 D
PM 0.901 E
25 California Avenue/Firestone Boulevard /b/ AM 0.839 D
PM 0.810 D
26 Otis Street/Firestone Boulevard /b/ AM 0.943 E
PM 0.871 D
27 Rheem Avenue-Alexander Avenue/Firestone Boulevard /b/ AM 0.797 C
PM 0.750 C
28 Atlantic Avenue/Firestone Boulevard /b/ AM 0.936 E
PM 0.930 E
29 Rayo Avenue/Firestone Boulevard /b/ AM 0.744 C
PM 0.780 C
30 I-710 Southbound Ramps/Firestone Boulevard /b/ AM 0.807 D
PM 0.895 D
31 I-710 Northbound Ramps/Firestone Boulevard /b/ AM 0.820 D
PM 0.915 E
/a/County of Los Angeles Intersection
/b/City of South Gate Intersection
/c/Two-Way Stop Controlled Intersection
/d/All-Way Stop Controlled Intersection
taha 2012-090 4.12-14

Congestion Management Plan

A Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) has been prepared in accordance with the procedures outlined in the
2010 CMP for Los Angeles County (Metro, October 2010) to determine the potential impacts on designated
monitoring locations on the CMP highway system. The CMP TIA guidelines require that intersection
monitoring locations must be examined if the proposed project will add 50 or more trips during either the
AM or PM weekday peak hours. Additionally, the CMP TIA guidelines require that freeway monitoring
locations must be examined if the proposed project will add 150 or more trips (in either direction) during
either the weekday AM or PM peak hours.
The nearest CMP intersections include Alameda Street/Firestone Boulevard (Intersection No. 4) and Atlantic
Avenue/Firestone Boulevard (Intersection No. 28). The nearest CMP freeway monitoring locations in the
study area include CMP Station No. 1043, I-105 Freeway west of I-710 and east of Harris Avenue, CMP
Station No. 1046, I-110 Freeway at Manchester Avenue; and CMP Station No. 1080, I-710 Freeway north of
Firestone Boulevard.
Vehicle and Pedestrian Site Access

Project Site Access. Currently, primary vehicular access to Buildings 1, 3, and 4 is provided via one
driveway on the north side of Firestone Boulevard, east of Calden Avenue. This driveway provides shared
vehicular access with the adjacent HON site to the west (a former furniture manufacturing facility which is
currently vacant). The property line between these two sites bisects the midpoint of the driveway and runs
generally in a north-south direction. A previously executed agreement between the owners of both sites
allows for the shared use and stipulates that both owners share the costs to maintain the driveway. The
project site access driveway on Firestone Boulevard is unsignalized and accommodates full access turning
movements (i.e., left-turn and right-turn ingress and egress turning movements). In addition to the primary
access driveway on Firestone Boulevard, secondary driveways are located along the west side of Santa Fe
Avenue, just south of Orchard Place and opposite Laurel Place.
The Firestone Boulevard driveway provides vehicular access to the truck yards and surface parking areas
located south of Building 1 and north of Building 3, and the loading docks located along the west and south
sides of Building 1, the west and north sides of Building 3, and the west side of Building 4. Loadings docks
located along the east sides of Buildings 1, 3, and 4 are accessed from Santa Fe Avenue.
Vehicular access to Building 2 is separately provided via one driveway along the north side of Firestone
Boulevard and one driveway along the west side of Santa Fe Avenue. All existing project driveways are
proposed to remain and would continue to provide vehicular access to Buildings 1, 2, and 3.
Public Transit, Bicycle, or Pedestrian Facilities

Bus Transit Services. Public bus transit service within the vicinity of the project study area is provided by
the Metro. A summary of the existing transit service including the transit routes, destinations, and peak hour
headways is presented in Table 4.12-6.
Metro Blue Line Light Rail. The Metro Rail system is comprised of the Metro Blue, Green, Red, Purple,
and Gold Lines. The project study area is currently served by the Metro Blue Line. The nearest Metro Blue
Line Station to the project site is the Firestone Station, located approximately one mile to the west of the
project site near the Graham Avenue/Firestone Boulevard intersection. Students, faculty and staff of the
proposed project can use the Metro Blue Line train service to access the site via a single transfer to existing
bus/transit service along Firestone Boulevard or use alternative modes of transportation (e.g., bicycling and
walking). The Metro Blue Line currently provides headway of 10 trains per hour in each direction during the
weekday morning and afternoon peak commute hours.
taha 2012-090 4.12-15

TABLE 4.12-6: EXISTING TRANSIT ROUTES

No. of Buses/Trains
During Peak Hour
Route Destinations Roadway(s) Near Site Direction /a/ AM PM
Metro Compton to Downtown Los Pacific Blvd., Long Beach Blvd., NB 5 5
Route 60 Angeles via Lynwood, South Broadway, Independence Ave.,
Gate and Vernon Southern Ave., Firestone Blvd., SB 5 6
Tweedy Blvd.
Metro Playa del Rey to Norwalk via Firestone Blvd., Fir Ave., Ivy St., EB 6 7
Route 115 Westchester, Inglewood, Los Alameda St., Calden Ave., Santa
Angeles, Florence, South Fe Ave., Long Beach Blvd., Garden
Gate, Downey View Ave., State St., California WB 5 5
Ave., Otis Ave., Alexander Ave,
Atlantic Ave, Rayo Ave
Metro LAX to Downey via Inglewood, Tweedy Blvd., Alameda St., Long EB 3 3
Route 117 Los Angeles, Watts, South Beach Blvd., State St., California
Gate Ave., Otis Ave., Alexander Ave., WB 3 3
Atlantic Ave.
Metro Lynwood to Cypress Park via State St., Santa Ana St., Firestone NB 3 3
Route 251 Huntington Park, Boyle Blvd., California Ave., Tweedy
SB 3 3
Heights, Lincoln Park Blvd.
Metro Watts to Boyle Heights via Los Santa Fe Ave., Nadeau St. NB 1 1
Route 254 Angeles, Huntington Park
SB 2 1
Vernon
Metro Compton to Altadena via Atlantic Ave., Firestone Blvd.
NB 5 4
Route 260 Lynwood, Maywood, East Los
Angeles, Alhambra, Pasadena
SB 4 5
Metro Cudahy to Maywood via Santa Ana St., State St. EB 2 2
Route 611 Huntington Park, Florence, Los
Angeles, Vernon WB 2 2
Metro Willowbrook to Lynwood via Firestone Blvd., Santa Fe Ave., EB 2 2
Route 612 Watts, South Gate, Huntington Tweedy Blvd.
Park, Bell WB 2 2
Metro Lynwood to Downtown Los Pacific Blvd., Santa Ana St., NB 7 4
Rapid 760 Angeles via South Gate, Firestone Blvd., Tweedy Blvd.,
Huntington Park Long Beach Blvd. SB 5 5
Metro Compton to Pasadena via Atlantic Blvd., Firestone Blvd. NB 3 2
Rapid 762 Lynwood, East Los Angeles,
Alhambra SB 3 3
Metro Long Beach to 7th St./Metro Firestone Blvd. Station NB 10 10
Blue Line 801 Center via Carson, Compton,
Willowbrook, Watts, Florence,
SB 10 10
Los Angeles
The Gate Get Around Town Express-City Santa Fe Ave., Firestone Blvd.,
of South Gate Ardmore Ave., California Ave.,
WB 3 3
Southern Ave., Atlantic Ave.,
Tweedy Blvd.
TOTAL 94 91
/a/ NB: Northbound; SB: Southbound; WB: Westbound; EB: Eastbound
SOURCE: Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers, Traffic Impact Study 2013 Firestone Educational Center Master, November 21, 2013.
East Los Angeles College-South Gate Education Center (ELAC-SGEC) Shuttle Services. ELAC
currently operates an inter-campus shuttle that transfers students between the ELAC main campus in the City
of Monterey Park and the existing SGEC. The ELAC-SGEC shuttle operates Mondays through Thursdays
with 18 daily round trips (i.e., nine shuttle trips each way). The first shuttle departs SGEC at 6:30 a.m. and
arrives at ELAC at 7:05 a.m. The last shuttle departs ELAC at 10:10 p.m. and arrives at SGEC at 10:35 p.m.
This free shuttle service is available to ELAC-SGEC students, staff, and faculty. Based on information
provided by ELAC, the total recorded ridership for the Fall Semester of 2010 was approximately 24,000 one-
way trips.
taha 2012-090 4.12-16

Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities. Sidewalks are provided along all key roadways in the project vicinity
and pedestrian crosswalks are provided at signalized intersections near the project site. There are no bicycle
facilities (i.e., Class I, II, or III facilities) currently provided in the immediate vicinity of the project site.
impact related to transportation/traffic if it would:
• Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass
transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not
limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit;
• Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of
service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways;
• Result in inadequate emergency access; and/or
• Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.
City of South Gate Intersection Impact Criteria and Thresholds. The relative impact of the added
project traffic volumes to be generated by the proposed project during the weekday AM and PM peak hours
was evaluated based on analysis of future operating conditions at the study intersections without and with the
proposed project. The previously discussed capacity analysis procedures were utilized to evaluate the future
v/c or delay relationships and service level characteristics at each study intersection.
The significance of the potential impacts of project-generated traffic at each study intersection was identified
using guidelines provided by the City of South Gate. According to the City of South Gate’s methodology for
calculating the level of impact due to traffic generated by the proposed project, a significant transportation
impact is determined based on the criteria presented in Table 4.12-7.
TABLE 4.12-7: CITY OF SOUTH GATE INTERSECTION IMPACT THRESHOLD CRITERIA

Final volume-to-capacity Level of Service Project Related Increase in volume-to-capacity
> 0.900 E or F Equal to or greater than 0.02
The City’s method requires mitigation of project traffic impacts whenever traffic generated by the proposed
development causes an increase of the analyzed intersection v/c ratio by an amount equal to or greater than
the values shown above. For unsignalized study intersections, the City of South Gate utilizes the HCM
method to determine the Level of Service and the ICU method to determine the increase in the v/c ratio. The
ICU calculations use a lane capacity of 1,600 vehicles per hour (vph) for left-turn, through and right-turn
lanes, and a dual left-turn lane capacity of 2,880 vph. A clearance interval of 0.10 is also included in the ICU
calculations.
County of Los Angeles Intersection Impact Criteria and Thresholds. For the seven study intersections
located either partially or solely within the County of Los Angeles, the significance of the potential project
generated traffic impacts was identified using the traffic impact analysis guidelines set forth in the Los
Angeles County Department of Public Works’ Traffic Impact Analysis Report Guidelines. 1 According to the
1
County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Traffic Impact Analysis Report Guidelines, January 1997.
taha 2012-090 4.12-17

County’s published guidelines, the impact is considered significant if the project-related increase in the v/c
ratio equals or exceeds the threshold criteria presented in Table 4.12-8.
TABLE 4.12-8: COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES INTERSECTION IMPACT THRESHOLD CRITERIA

Pre-Project volume-to-capacity Level of Service Project Related Increase in volume-to-capacity
0.71 to 0.80 C equal to or greater than 0.04
0.81 to 0.90 D equal to or greater than 0.02
0.91 or more E/F equal to or greater than 0.01
SOURCE: Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers, Traffic Impact Study 2013 Firestone Educational Center Master, November 21, 2013.
According to the County of Los Angeles requirements, the ICU calculations utilize a lane capacity of
1,600 vph per lane for left-turn, through, and right-turn lanes, and 2,880 vph for dual left-turn lanes.
Additionally, a clearance factor of 0.10 is included in the ICU calculations. The County’s Sliding Scale
method require mitigation of project traffic impacts whenever traffic generated by the proposed development
causes an increase of the analyzed intersection v/c ratio by an amount equal to or greater than the values
shown above.
IMPACTS
Traffic Forecasting Methodology
In order to estimate the traffic impact characteristics of the proposed project, a multi-step process has been
utilized. The first step is trip generation, which estimates the total arriving and departing traffic project
volumes on a peak hour and daily basis. The traffic generation potential is forecast by applying the
appropriate vehicle trip generation equations or rates to the project development tabulation.
The second step of the forecasting process is trip distribution, which identifies the origins and destinations of
inbound and outbound project traffic volumes. These origins and destinations are typically based on
demographics and existing/anticipated travel patterns in the study area.
The third step is traffic assignment, which involves the allocation of project traffic to study area streets and
intersections. Traffic assignment is typically based on minimization of travel time, which may or may not
involve the shortest route, depending on prevailing operating conditions and travel speeds. Traffic
distribution patterns are indicated by general percentage orientation, while traffic assignment allocates
specific volume forecasts to individual roadway links and intersection turning movements throughout the
study area.
With the forecasting process complete and project traffic assignments developed, the impact of the proposed
project is isolated by comparing operational (i.e., LOS) conditions at selected key intersections using
expected future traffic volumes with and without forecast project traffic. The need for site-specific and/or
cumulative local area traffic improvements can then be evaluated and the significance of the project’s
impacts identified.
Traffic Impact Analysis Methodology

City of South Gate Analysis Methodology. The AM and PM peak hour operating conditions for the 31
study intersections were evaluated using the ICU methodology for signalized intersections and the
methodologies outlined in the HCM2010 for unsignalized intersections, based on City of South Gate traffic
study guidelines. Descriptions of the signalized and unsignalized LOS criteria are provided above in
Tables 4.12-3 and 4.12-4, respectively.
taha 2012-090 4.12-18

City of South Gate Traffic Impact Analysis Scenarios. Traffic impacts at the study intersections for the
proposed project were analyzed for the following conditions:
• Condition (a), Existing conditions
• Condition (b), Existing with project conditions
• Condition (c), Year 2031 without project conditions
• Condition (d), Condition (c) with completion and occupancy of proposed project
• Condition (e), Condition (d) with implementation of project mitigation measures, where necessary
The traffic volumes for each new condition were added to the volumes in the prior condition to determine the
change in capacity utilization at the study intersections.
County of Los Angeles Analysis Methodology. All 31 study intersections were evaluated using the City of
South Gate’s ICU/HCM analysis methods. In addition, for the seven study intersections located either
partially or solely within the County of Los Angeles, the County of Los Angeles’ ICU method of analysis
was also conducted.
County of Los Angeles Traffic Impact Analysis Scenarios. For the County of Los Angeles study
intersections, LOS calculations have been prepared for the following scenarios:
• Condition (a), Existing conditions
• Condition (b), Condition (a) plus 0.85 percent ambient traffic growth up through Year 2031
• Condition (c), Condition (b) with completion and occupancy of proposed project
• Condition (d), Condition (c) with implementation of project mitigation measures where necessary
• Condition (e), Condition (d) with cumulative traffic of other related projects
• Condition (f), Condition (e) with implementation of cumulative mitigation measures where necessary
The traffic volumes for each new condition were added to the volumes in the prior condition to determine the
change in capacity utilization at the study intersections.
CONSTRUCTION
Circulation System
Construction activity may affect adjacent streets, including Firestone Boulevard and Santa Fe Avenue and
may require the temporary closure of the sidewalks adjacent to the project site. In addition, construction of
the proposed project would result in truck trips along roadway segments near the project site. However, the
majority of the construction workers are expected to arrive and depart the project site during off-peak hours.
The effects of construction activity would be localized and temporary in nature. All construction activities,
including new signalized intersections, would be coordinated with the City of South Gate affected City
departments in advance of the start of work to minimize traffic impacts to the greatest extent practicable.
Appropriate noticing would be implemented before and during the construction period. Therefore, impacts
related to circulation system would be less than significant.
Congestion Management Program

Construction of the proposed project would result in an increase in truck trips along roadway segments near
the project site. In general, the majority of the construction workers are expected to arrive and depart the
project site during off-peak hours. As a result, construction activities are not expected to add more than
50 trips at the identified CMP intersections within the vicinity of the project site during the AM and PM peak
hours. Construction of the proposed project would not add 150 or more trips during either the weekday AM
or PM peak hours to the CMP freeway monitoring locations. Therefore, impacts related to the CMP would
be less than significant.
taha 2012-090 4.12-19


Construction activity may affect adjacent streets, including Firestone Boulevard and Santa Fe Avenue. In
addition, construction activities could require the temporary closure of the sidewalks adjacent to the project
site. However, all construction activities would be coordinated with the City of South Gate and affected City
departments in advance of start of work to ensure public safety. Appropriate noticing would be implemented
before and during construction. Therefore, impacts related to vehicle and pedestrian site access would be
less than significant.

As discussed above, construction of the proposed project would result in an increase in truck trips along
roadway segments near the project site and may require the temporary closure of the sidewalks adjacent to
the project site. However, all construction activities would be coordinated with the City of South Gate
affected City departments and Metro in advance of start of work to ensure safety and minimize impacts to
transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities to the greatest extent practicable. Therefore, impacts related to
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities would be less than significant.
OPERATIONS
Circulation System
Traffic generation is expressed in vehicle trip ends, defined as one-way vehicular movements, either entering
or exiting the generating land use.
Firestone Education Center Component. The manual traffic counts were conducted at the existing SGEC
site access driveways during the Fall 2012 school session during the weekday AM and PM peak time periods
(i.e., 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.). It is important to note that observations of school-
related trips utilizing on-street public parking near the SGEC facility (i.e., along both sides of Calden
Avenue, Beaudine Avenue, Firestone Plaza, Glenwood Place, and Southern Avenue) were included in the
manual counts so as to capture AM and PM peak period trip generation associated with students, faculty
and/or staff who were observed to park on-street versus parking on-site. Furthermore, the manual traffic
counts also included the site access driveways of the two remote parking lots located at the northeast and
northwest corners of the Calden Avenue/Southern Avenue intersection.
Based on student attendance information provided by LACCD, the existing SGEC facility typically experiences
peak student attendance on Wednesdays. As a result, the traffic count data compiled for Tuesday/Thursday
conditions were reviewed and adjusted upward accordingly in order to develop Firestone Education Center-
specific trip generation rates for the weekday AM and PM peak hours, as well as on a daily basis.
The following weekday trip generation rates for the proposed project were developed based on existing
traffic characteristics observed at the SGEC facility and adjusted to reflect typical peak day conditions:
• Weekday AM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.079 trips per student (76 percent inbound and 24 percent
outbound)
• Weekday PM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.066 trips per student (56 percent inbound and 44 percent
outbound)
• Weekday Daily Trip Rate: 0.790 trips per student (50 percent inbound and 50 percent outbound)
On a comparative basis with trip rates provided in the ITE Trip Generation Manual (ITE Land Use Code 540,
Junior/Community College), the observed SGEC trip rates are 34, 45, and 36 percent lower than the
applicable ITE Junior/Community College trip rates for the AM peak hour, PM peak hour, and daily basis,
respectively. This difference in the observed rates versus the ITE rates is representative of the satellite nature
of the project, urban location of SGEC which includes public transit service, as well as existing pedestrian
and bicycle trip-making opportunities provided at the facility and surrounding areas.
taha 2012-090 4.12-20

Existing Uses To Be Removed/Vacated. The project trip generation forecasts also include trip generation
credits for both the existing SGEC and the warehouse Building 4, which will be demolished to accommodate
the proposed project. As stated above, traffic volume forecasts for the existing SGEC were based on
driveway traffic counts and on-street observations conducted at the SGEC facility. Traffic volume forecasts
for the warehouse use trip generation credit were developed based on the AM and PM peak period traffic
counts conducted at the existing project driveway located along the north side of Firestone Boulevard, just
east of Calden Avenue and the two existing project driveways located along the west side of Santa Fe
Avenue. Trip rates per thousand square feet of floor area, derived from the currently occupied floor area in
Buildings 1, 3, and 4 were then subsequently applied to the floor area of Building 4 to determine the existing
use trip generation credit associated with Building 4.
By comparing the trip rates provided in the ITE Trip Generation Manual (ITE Land Use Code 150,
Warehousing) with the observed (derived) warehouse trip rates, it can be concluded that the observed trip
rates are 49, 36, and 43 percent lower than the applicable ITE trip rates for the AM peak hour, PM peak hour,
and daily basis. This difference in the observed rates versus the ITE rates is likely attributable to the current
economy and the urban context of the site. As a result, use of the observed trip rates will result in a more
conservative (lower) trip generation credit for the warehouse use.
Proposed Project Traffic Generation

The traffic generation forecast for the proposed project is summarized in Table 4.12-9. As shown, the
proposed project is expected to generate 289 net new vehicle trips (225 inbound trips and 64 outbound trips)
during the weekday AM peak hour. During the weekday PM peak hour, the proposed project is expected to
generate 224 net new vehicle trips (141 inbound trips and 83 outbound trips). Over a 24-hour period, the
proposed project is estimated to generate 2,780 net new daily trip ends during a typical weekday
(1,390 inbound trips and 1,390 outbound trips).
TABLE 4.12-9: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION /A/

Daily Trip AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Ends Volumes /a/ Volumes /a/
Land Use Size Volumes/a/ In Out Total In Out Total
PROPOSED PROJECT
Firestone Education Center 9,000 Students 7,110 540 171 711 333 261 594
EXISTING USES TO BE REMOVED/VACATED
Existing South Gate Education (4,912)
(3,880) (293) (95) (388) (183) (142) (325)
Center Students
Warehouse (Bldg. 4) (220,550) GSF (450) (22) (12) (34) (9) (36) (45)
Subtotal (4,330) (315) (107) (422) (192) (178) (370)
Net Increase 2,780 225 64 289 141 83 224
/a/Trips are one-way traffic movements, entering or leaving.
Proposed Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment
Project traffic volumes both entering and exiting the project site have been distributed and assigned to the
adjacent street system based on the following considerations:
• The project site's proximity to major traffic corridors (i.e., Firestone Boulevard, Santa Fe Avenue)
• Expected localized traffic flow patterns based on adjacent roadway channelization and presence of traffic
signals
• Existing intersection traffic volumes
• Ingress/egress availability at the project site
• Existing South Gate Education Center student population zip code data
taha 2012-090 4.12-21

The forecasted net new weekday AM and PM peak hour project traffic volumes at study intersections are
presented in Figures 4.12-5 and 4.12-6, respectively. The net new project traffic volume assignments reflect
traffic distribution characteristics, project traffic generation forecasts, and the existing and proposed site
generation and access characteristics.
Future Traffic Conditions. The forecast of future pre-project conditions was prepared in accordance with
procedures outlined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15130. Specifically, the CEQA Guidelines provides two
options for developing the future traffic volume forecast:
• (A) A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts,
including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the [lead] agency, or
• (B) A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a
prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated
regional or areawide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact. Any such planning document
shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the lead agency.
For purposes of developing the forecast, the traffic analysis provides a highly conservative estimate of future
pre-project traffic volumes as it incorporates both the “A” and “B” options outlined in the CEQA Guidelines.
In general, a review of cumulative impacts must address approved related projects under construction,
approved related projects not yet under construction, and unapproved projects under environmental review
with related impacts or which result in significant cumulative impacts.
In addition, the related projects analysis also includes potential redevelopment of the adjacent HON site in
which a formal planning application has not yet been filed with the City of South Gate. This related project
was considered since conceptual site plans have been prepared for the site and, therefore, it was concluded
that future development on the site is “reasonably foreseeable”. Land use information for the potential
redevelopment of the HON site was obtained based on initial coordination between LACCD and the potential
HON developer. While this related project is considered to be speculative in the short term, it has been
considered as part of the Year 2031 Future Conditions Analysis. Furthermore, this traffic impact study
conservatively assumes traffic associated with the potential redevelopment of the HON site in the cumulative
analysis conditions but does not include any potential mitigation measures that are likely to be required for
the HON redevelopment project (except for its main project access driveway on Firestone Boulevard, as
discussed below).
Pursuant to the Conditions of Approval of the nearby Calden Court Apartments project, a traffic signal has
been approved for installation at the intersection of Calden Avenue and Firestone Boulevard. It is assumed
that if and when the HON site is redeveloped in the long-term conditions the City will require the HON
project Applicant to tie into this intersection and align the access point directly opposite Calden Avenue. As
such, the HON project Applicant would be required to construct the fourth leg of the intersection (i.e., the
north leg) and modify the traffic signal accordingly. The intersection would accommodate all turning
movements at all four approaches. In this scenario, the necessary right-of-way is assumed to be dedicated by
the HON project Applicant and that three exiting southbound travel lanes (i.e., one left-turn only lane, one
combination left/through lane and one right-turn only lane) would be provided at the intersection. The signal
is also assumed to provide overlap traffic signal phasing for the eastbound left-turn traffic movement to be
operated concurrently with the southbound (exiting driveway) right-turn traffic movement in order to better
facilitate the anticipated future traffic volumes to/from the HON site as well as along the Firestone Boulevard
corridor. The above measures therefore are reflected in the proposed project traffic study under the
Year 2031 analysis conditions. In addition, consistent with the other study intersections, the City’s Mobility
Element improvements (i.e., three through travel lanes in both the eastbound and westbound directions along
Firestone Boulevard) have not been assumed at this location in the Year 2031 Analysis Conditions. It is
anticipated that the City-approved signalization of the Calden Avenue/Firestone Boulevard intersection and
the expected operating conditions would further improve when the General Plan improvements are
completed and implemented.
taha 2012-090 4.12-22

Not to N
LEGEND: SCALE
Project Site
taha 2012-090
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report NET NEW PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR
Not to N
LEGEND: SCALE
Project Site
taha 2012-090
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report NET NEW PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR
Ambient Traffic Growth. Horizon year, background traffic growth estimates have been calculated by using
an ambient traffic growth factor. The ambient traffic growth factor is intended to include unknown related
projects in the study area, as well as account for typical growth in traffic volumes due to the development of
projects outside the study area. The existing traffic volumes were increased at an annual rate of 0.85 percent
(0.85 percent) per year to the 2031 (i.e., the anticipated year where the proposed maximum of 9,000 student
enrollment will be attained.) The ambient growth factor was based on review of the background traffic
growth estimates for South Gate (included as part of Regional Statistical Area No. 21) published in the 2010
Congestion Management Program which indicate that existing traffic volumes would be expected to increase
at an annual rate of approximately 0.85 percent per year between years 2010 and 2030. Therefore, use of the
0.85 percent annual growth factor allows for a conservative forecast of future traffic volumes in the area.
Further, it is noted that the CMP manual’s traffic growth rate is intended to anticipate future traffic generated
by development projects in the project vicinity. Thus, the inclusion in the traffic analysis of both a forecast
of traffic generated by known related projects plus the use of an ambient traffic growth factor based on CMP
traffic model data results in a conservative estimate of future traffic volumes at the study intersections.
Related Projects Traffic Characteristics. A forecast of on-street traffic conditions prior to occupancy of
the proposed project was prepared by incorporating the potential trips associated with related projects in the
area. With this information, the potential impact of the proposed project can be evaluated within the context
of the cumulative impact of all ongoing development. The list of related projects was based on research
conducted the Cities of South Gate, Lynwood, Downey, Huntington Park, Los Angeles Departments of
Transportation and Planning, the County of Los Angeles, as well as recently approved traffic impact analysis
reports prepared for projects in the vicinity of the project. The related projects research was conducted in
December 2012, coinciding with the issuance of the Notice of Preparation. However, based on additional
information provided by the City of South Gate in May 2013, the related projects list (Table 4.12-10) has
been updated so as to include additional development projects in the project vicinity.
It should be noted that at the time traffic counts were conducted at the study intersections in late 2010, a total
of 320,397 square feet of Buildings 1, 3, and 4 were occupied. As a result, the remaining 722,473 square feet
of vacant floor areas associated with Buildings 1, 3, and 4 were assumed to be re-occupied as potential
warehousing use in the future and are thus considered as a related project for analysis purposes. Although
Building 2 is currently vacant, at the time existing traffic counts were conducted at the study intersections in
late 2010, Building 2 was occupied by LAUSD as an adult education facility. As traffic associated with
Building 2 was already included in the baseline traffic counts, separate traffic generation to reflect the re-
occupancy of Building 2 is not necessary. In addition, as discussed previously, the potential redevelopment
of the adjacent HON site has been considered as a related project although no formal planning application
has been submitted to the City of South Gate.
Based on current research, 46 related projects are located in the vicinity of the project site have either been
built, but not yet fully occupied, or are being processed for approval. These 46 related projects have been
included as part of the cumulative background setting in the Year 2031 analysis conditions. The locations of the
related projects are shown in Figure 4.12-7. These related projects are expected to generate vehicular traffic,
which may affect the operating conditions of the key study intersections. Traffic volumes expected to be
generated by the related projects were determined: 1) as calculated using rates provided in the ITE Trip
Generation Manual, or 2) as provided within other available environmental documents prepared for specific
projects. The related projects respective traffic generation for the weekday AM and PM peak hours, as well
as on a daily basis for a typical weekday, is summarized in Table 4.12-10.
City of South Gate Traffic Analysis
The results of the traffic impact analysis prepared using the ICU methodology (for signalized intersections)
and the HCM methodology (for unsignalized intersections) and application of the City of South Gate
significant traffic impact criteria is summarized in Table 4.12-11.
taha 2012-090 4.12-25

TABLE 4.12-10: RELATED PROJECTS AND TRIP GENERATION

Map Project Project Name/ Land Use Data Ends Volumes Volumes
No. Status Project Number Address/Location Land Use Size Volumes In Out Total In Out Total
CITY OF SOUTH GATE
Built / Not
1 2525 Firestone Blvd. Warehouse 722,473 GSF 2,572 171 46 217 58 173 231
Occupied
Built / Not
2 2340 Firestone Blvd. Light Industrial 51,020 GSF 356 41 6 47 6 43 49
Occupied
Northeast Corner of Firestone Shopping Center 11,305 157 97 254 471 511 982
3 Proposed South Gate Shopping Center Blvd. & Walk-In Reduction (10%) 264,750 GSF (1,131) (16) (10) (25) (47) (51) (98)
Alameda St. Pass-By Reduction (30%) (3,052) (42) (26) (69) (127) (138) (265)
4 Completed South Region ES #9 2777 Willow Pl. Elementary School 650 Students 839 161 132 293 48 50 98
High School 1,431 students 770 301 257 588 314 116 430
5 Completed South Region HS #9 5225 Tweedy Blvd.
Adult Evening School 450 students
Southeast Los Angeles 4070-4100 Ardmore Ave. Courthouse, 9 courtrooms 949 115 16 131 15 71 86
6 Proposed
Courthouse Project 4095-4101 Firestone Blvd. Existing Manufacturing/Retail (124,623) GSF (660) (95) (28) (123) (44) (78) (122)
Under Northwest corner of Movie Theater 2,200 seats
7 South Gate Gateway Project 19,503 250 164 414 770 872 1,642
Construction Firestone Blvd. & Atlantic Ave. Retail 550,000 GSF
Under
8 Atlantic Park Plaza Project 9923 Atlantic Blvd. Retail 50,000 GSF 2,135 30 18 48 89 97 186
Construction
9 Approved Calden Court Apartments 2405 Southern Avenue Apartments 225 DU 1302 23 92 115 91 49 140
Under
10 Azteca Market and Deli 9020 Long Beach Blvd. Supermarket 11,230 GSF 1148 24 14 38 54 52 106
Construction
Built/Not Condominiums 47 DU 273 4 17 21 16 8 24
11 Firestone Village 3125 Firestone Blvd.
Occupied Retail 15,000 GSF 641 9 5 14 27 29 56
CITY OF LYNWOOD
12 Completed Habitat for Humanity 4237 Imperial Hwy. Affordable Housing 10 DU 95 2 6 8 6 4 10
Under Corner of Atlantic Ave.&
13 Park Place Project Apartment 99 DU 658 10 40 50 40 21 61
Construction Carlin Ave.
East side of Long Beach Blvd.
14 Proposed Northgate Markets between Josephine St. & Commercial 60,820 GSF 2,597 36 22 58 108 118 226
the I-105 Fwy.
Southwest Corner of
15 Approved Supermarket 10,550 GSF 1,079 22 14 36 51 49 100
Long Beach Blvd. & Pluma St.
16 Approved 11833 Atlantic Avenue Retail 7,843 GLSF 335 5 3 8 14 15 29
17 Proposed 2600 Imperial Highway Distribution Center 200,007 GSF 712 47 13 60 16 48 64
CITY OF DOWNEY
Under Corner of Downey Ave. &
18 Downey Gateway Restaurant 25,000 GSF 3,179 149 121 270 148 98 246
Construction Firestone Blvd.
Condominium 1,500 DU
Bounded by Lakewood Blvd., Hotel 450 Rooms
19 Proposed Tierra Luna Specific Plan Bellflower Blvd., & Congressman General Office 675,000 GSF 32,118 1,052 662 1,714 1,363 1,735 3,098
Steve Horn Way Shopping Center 1,200,000 GSF
Remove Existing Downey Studios
Northeast corner of Gallatin
20 Proposed Condominium 46 DU 267 3 17 20 16 8 24
Road and Lakewood Boulevard
taha 2012-090 4.12-26

TABLE 4.12-10: RELATED PROJECTS AND TRIP GENERATION

Map Project Project Name/ Land Use Data Ends Volumes Volumes
No. Status Project Number Address/Location Land Use Size Volumes In Out Total In Out Total
CITY OF HUNTINGTON PARK
Elementary School 950 Students 1,226 209 200 409 70 73 143
Existing Single-Family
Under South Region Elementary (25) DU (238) (5) (14) (19) (16) (9) (25)
21 3232 Saturn Ave. Residential
Construction School #5
Existing Multi-Family
(70) DU (466) (7) (29) (36) (28) (15) (43)
Residential
High School 1,620 Students
Existing Single-Family
Under South Region High School (3) DU
22 6361 Cottage St. Residential 2,770 314 281 595 272 (11) 261
Construction #7
Existing Apartment (15) DU
Existing Light Industrial (28,156) GSF
CITY OF LOS ANGELES
Watts Cinema & Education Movie Theater with Matinee 1,040 Seats 730 Nom. Nom. Nom. 28 45 73
23 Proposed 10341 Graham Ave.
Center (ZA-2010-2684) Education Center 12,000 GSF 406 17 8 25 16 17 33
24 Proposed HRB08-005 11300 Monitor Ave. Public High School 500 Students 855 146 69 215 31 34 65
Jordan Downs
25 Proposed Redevelopment Master Plan 9800 Grape St. Mixed Use 14,150 525 640 1,166 671 594 1,265
HRB10-003
26 Built Amino Watts #2 1630 E. 111th St. High School 125 Students 214 37 17 54 8 8 16
27 Built South Region HS #12 8880 S. San Pedro St. Adult Evening School 450 Students 2,878 275 344 619 188 54 242
Sports Field 3 Fields
28 Proposed Alliance Heritage MS 9719 S. Main St. Middle School 400 Students 648 119 97 216 31 33 64
Senior Housing 49 DU 169 3 7 10 6 6 12
29 Proposed 9402 S. Broadway
Retail 25,000 GLSF 1,068 15 9 24 45 48 93
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Banquet Hall 7,722 GSF 261 11 5 16 10 11 21
30 Proposed R2004-00142 2121 Firestone Blvd.
Existing Retail/Commercial (7,722) GSF (330) (4) (3) (7) (14) (15) (29)
Hospital 784,910 GSF
Martin Luther King, Jr. Commercial/Retail 80,000 GSF
31 Proposed Medical Center Campus 12021 Wilmington Ave. Single-Family Residential 100 DU 19,677 921 319 1,240 568 1,185 1,753
Redevelopment Medical Office 300,000 GSF
General Office 150,000 GSF
32 Proposed R2006-00769 1717 E. 61st St Apartment 30 DU 200 3 12 15 12 7 19
33 Proposed R2008-00065 9201 S Alameda St. Auto Body Parts Sales 318 GSF 20 1 0 1 1 1 2
34 Proposed R2008-00739 1560 E. Florence Ave Pawn Shop 5,880 GSF 261 Nom Nom Nom 7 9 16
35 Proposed R2008-01396 7312 Pacific Blvd Tatoo Parlour 5,376 GSF 238 Nom Nom Nom 7 8 15
36 Approved R2008-01423 1226 Nadeau St Used Auto Sales 5,000 GSF 162 8 2 10 5 8 13
37 Proposed R2008-01463 2241 E 89th St Recycling Center 41,857 GSF 292 34 5 39 5 36 41
38 Proposed R2009-00744 2808 E Florence Ave Used Auto Sales 6,340 GSF 205 9 3 12 7 10 17
39 Proposed R2009-01038 9301 Laurel St Outdoor Storage Yard 30,375 GSF 108 7 2 9 3 7 10
40 Proposed R2009-01441 7641 Santa Fe St Used Auto Sales 3,306 GSF 107 5 1 6 4 5 9
41 Proposed R2011-01147 8122 Maie Ave Light Manufacturing 8.3 acres 323 58 4 62 37 32 69
42 Proposed R2012-00157 1208 E 59th St. Apartment 10 DU 67 1 4 5 4 2 6
43 Proposed R2012-00881 1842 E. 58th Place Dance Hall 15,305 GSF 518 20 11 31 21 21 42
44 Proposed R2012-01264 6719 Compton Ave Used Auto Sales 3,500 GSF 113 5 2 7 4 5 9
45 Proposed R2012-01925 2100 Firestone Blvd Used Auto Sales 11,804 GSF 381 17 6 23 12 19 31
46 Proposed 9113 Alameda St Light Industrial 33,395 GSF 232 27 4 31 4 28 32
TOTAL 121,871 5,230 3,704 8,934 5,522 6,156 11,678
SOURCE: Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers Traffic Impact Study 2013 Firestone Educational Center Master Plan, November 21, 2013.
taha 2012-090 4.12-27

VE 101
NIC
AY
EB 4TH CESAR E CHAVEZ AVE
W
LVD ST
AD
ST
OL
O
7TH ST
BR
YM
NA
HOOVER ST
PI
RE
VERMONT AVE C 60
D
BL
LO
10
BLV
AV
16 VD
TH
710
D
ST 8TH
AN
IC
ST
ANT
GR
JEF BEVE
ATL
RLY B
FE OLYMPIC BLVD WHIT LVD
RS 23RD ST TIER
ON BLVD
BLV
D OLYMPI
C BLVD
MARTIN LUTHER KING JR BLVD WAS

H ING
TON
COMPTON AVE
SOTO ST
BLV 5
E
VERNON AVE D
AV
SANTA FE AVE
PACIFIC BLVD
OD
VERNON
WO
LOS ANGELES COMMERCE
EN
CENTRAL AVE
E
AVALON BLVD
GR
MAYWOOD
S FIGUEROA ST
S MAIN ST
SLAUSON AVE
42 43
VE
32
!
DA
HUNTINGTON
N AVE
22
IEL
44 PARK
GAGE AVE
RF
EASTER
FLORENCE AVE 46
GA
34 38 BELL
110 36 FLORENCE- 40 35WALNUT !
21 FLORENCE
AVE
ATLA
FIRESTONE PARK
BELL GARDENS
41 45
NTIC
MANCHESTER AVE
!
20 30 CUDAHY
!! !
AVE
39373 1 11
VD
!
BL
FIRESTONE
20
! 33
2 4 10 ! ! !
6
BLVD
NT
2927 7
OU
VD
!
AM
25 9 SOUTH GATE
BL
CENTURY BLVD28
OD
103RD ST TWEEDY
PA
BLVD
VERMONT AVE
UNINCORPORATED
ALAM
WO
LOS ANGELES
!
23 8 !5 !
18
KE
COUNTY
EDA S
ABBOTT RD
LA
!
26 24
!
15
!
DOWNEY
T
12
17
105
31 LYNWOOD !
19
WILLOWBROOK
14 605
EL SEGUNDO BLVD IMPERIAL HWY
LONG BEACH BLV
!
16
13
105
RANCHO ROSECRANS AVE EAST

DOMINGUEZ COMPTON
PARAMOUNT
PARAMOUNT BLVD
WILMINGTON AVE
GARFIELD AVE
COMPTON BLVD
O ST
COMPTON BELLFLOWER
EDR
ALONDRA BLVD
BELLFLOWER BLVD
P
LAKEWOOD BLVD
SAN
91
ARTESIA FWY
ARTESIA BLVD
VICTORIA ST 710
ST
TH
190
LEGEND:
Project Site City of South Gate # Related Projects
1. Warehouse 13. Park Place Project 25. Jordan Downs Redevelopment 37. Recycling Center
2. Light Industrial 14. Northgate Markets Master Plan 38. Used Auto Sales
3. South Gate Shopping Center 26. Amino Watts #2 at Flourney ES 39. Outdoor Storage Yard
15. Supermarket
27. South Region High School #12 40. Used Auto Sales
4. South Region Elementary School #9 16. Retail
17. Distribution Center 28. Alice Heritage Middle School 41. Light Manufacturing
5. South Region High School #9
18. Downey Gateway 29. Senior Housing and Retail 42. Apartment
6. Southeast Los Angeles Courthouse
30. Banquet Hall and Existing Retail 43. Dance Hall
7. South Gate Gateway 19. Tierra Luna Specific Plan
31. Martin Luther King, Jr. Medical 44. Used Auto Sales
8. Atlantic Park Plaza 20. Condominium
Center Campus Redevelopment 45. Used Auto Sales
9. Calden Court Apartments 32. Apartment 46. Light Industrial
21. South Region Elementary School #5 N
10. Aztec Market and Deli 33. Auto Body Parts Sales
23. Watts Cinema and Education 34. Pawn Shop Approx.
11. Firestone Village Scale
Center
12. Habitat for Humanity 35. Tattoo Parlor
24. Public High School
36. Used Auto Sales 0 1 2
SOURCE: Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers and TAHA, 2013. miles
taha 2012-090
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report RELATED PROJECTS
TABLE 4.12-11: SUMMARY OF VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIOS DELAY AND LOS AM AND PM PEAK HOURS FOR PROJECT USING CITY OF
SOUTH GATE METHODOLOGY
Year 2031 Future
Year 2012 Year 2012 Existing Pre-Project w/ AG & Year 2031 Future Year 2031Future
Existing With Project Rel. Projects With Project With Project Mitigation
Peak V/C or V/C or Change Signif. V/C or V/C or Change Signif. V/C or Change
No. Intersection Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS V/C /a/ Impact Delay LOS Delay LOS V/C /b/ Impact Delay LOS V/C /c/ Mitigated
AM 0.521 A 0.524 A 0.003 No 0.600 A 0.603 B 0.003 No 0.603 B 0.003 ---
1 Fir Ave./Firestone Blvd. /a/
PM 0.494 A 0.500 A 0.006 No 0.588 A 0.594 A 0.006 No 0.594 A 0.006 ---
Ivy St.-Manchester AM 0.414 A 0.417 A 0.003 No 0.477 A 0.479 A 0.002 No 0.479 A 0.002 ---
2
Ave./Firestone Blvd. /a/ PM 0.484 A 0.490 A 0.006 No 0.568 A 0.574 A 0.006 No 0.574 A 0.006 ---
Alameda St./ AM 0.830 D 0.830 D 0.000 No 0.986 E 0.987 E 0.001 No 0.987 E 0.001 ---
3
Nadeau St. /a/ PM 0.845 D 0.847 D 0.002 No 1.018 F 1.020 F 0.002 No 1.020 F 0.002 ---
Alameda St./ Firestone AM 0.874 D 0.888 D 0.014 No 1.096 F 1.110 F 0.014 No 1.110 F 0.014 ---
4
Blvd. /a//b/ PM 0.909 E 0.929 E 0.020 Yes 1.241 F 1.262 F 0.021 Yes 1.262 F 0.021 No
Alameda St./92nd St.- AM 0.716 C 0.719 C 0.003 No 0.855 D 0.857 D 0.002 No 0.857 D 0.002 ---
5
Southern Ave. /a//b/ PM 0.847 D 0.847 D 0.000 No 1.027 F 1.028 F 0.001 No 1.028 F 0.001 ---
Alameda St./ AM 0.759 C 0.762 C 0.003 No 0.844 D 0.848 D 0.004 No 0.848 D 0.004 ---
6
Tweedy Blvd. /a, b/ PM 0.839 D 0.841 D 0.002 No 0.954 E 0.957 E 0.003 No 0.957 E 0.003 ---
AM >50.0 F >50.0 F 0.019 No 0.892 D 0.911 E 0.019 No 0.911 E 0.019 ---
Project Driveway-Calden
PM >50.0 F >50.0 F -0.064 No 0.969 E 0.910 E -0.059 No 0.910 E -0.059 ---
7 Ave./
AM 0.623 0.642
Firestone Blvd. /b//c/
PM 0.679 0.615
AM >50.0 F >50.0 F 0.128 Yes >50.0 F >50.0 F 0.127 Yes 0.814 D 0.218 Yes
Santa Fe Ave./Project
PM 37.7 E >50.0 F 0.144 Yes >50.0 F >50.0 F 0.134 Yes 0.813 D 0.286 Yes
8 Driveway
AM 0.522 0.650 0.596 0.723
Ardmore Ave. /b//c/
PM 0.454 0.598 0.527 0.661
AM 14.2 B 21.6 C 0.077 No 17.0 C 30.2 D 0.077 No 30.2 D 0.050 ---
Santa Fe Ave./
PM 16.4 C 24.5 C 0.047 No 21.3 C 36.9 E 0.047 Yes 36.9 E 0.034 No
9 Project Driveway-Orchard
AM 0.374 0.451 0.424 0.501 0.474
Place /b//c/
PM 0.385 0.432 0.443 0.490 0.477
Santa Fe Ave./ AM 0.882 D 0.956 E 0.074 Yes 1.099 F 1.173 F 0.074 Yes 1.028 F -0.071 Yes
10
Firestone Blvd. /b/ PM 0.839 D 0.886 D 0.047 No 1.108 F 1.142 F 0.034 Yes 1.110 F 0.002 Yes
AM 29.87 D 31.21 D 0.004 No >50.00 F >50.00 F 0.005 No >50.00 F 0.005
---
Santa Fe Ave.-Truba Ave. PM 21.98 C 22.47 C 0.003 No 44.02 E 45.73 E 0.003 No 45.73 E 0.003
11
Southern Ave. /b//d/ AM 0.673 0.677 0.787 0.792 0.792
---
PM 0.644 0.647 0.749 0.752 0.752
Pacific Blvd./ AM 0.621 B 0.621 B 0.000 No 0.719 C 0.719 C 0.000 No 0.719 C 0.000 ---
12
Broadway /a/ PM 0.751 C 0.753 C 0.002 No 0.888 D 0.888 D 0.000 No 0.888 D 0.000 ---
Long Beach Blvd./ AM 0.603 B 0.604 B 0.001 No 0.699 B 0.699 B 0.000 No 0.699 B 0.000 ---
13 Poplar Place-Seville Ave.
PM 0.561 A 0.562 A 0.001 No 0.674 B 0.675 B 0.001 No 0.675 B 0.001 ---
/b/
Long Beach AM 0.495 A 0.496 A 0.001 No 0.573 A 0.573 A 0.000 No 0.573 A 0.000 ---
14 Blvd./Independence Ave.
(West Leg) /b/ PM 0.543 A 0.545 A 0.002 No 0.647 B 0.648 B 0.001 No 0.648 B 0.001 ---
Long Beach Blvd./ AM 0.625 B 0.635 B 0.010 No 0.732 C 0.741 C 0.009 No 0.741 C 0.009 ---
15 Independence Ave. (East
PM 0.565 A 0.573 A 0.008 No 0.683 B 0.690 B 0.007 No 0.690 B 0.007 ---
Leg) /b/
16
Ardmore Ave. /b/ PM 0.602 B 0.624 B 0.022 No 0.724 C 0.745 C 0.021 No 0.745 C 0.021 ---
17 Long Beach Blvd./ AM 0.901 E 0.910 E 0.009 No 1.164 F 1.176 F 0.012 No 1.176 F 0.012 ---
taha 2012-090 4.12-29

TABLE 4.12-11: SUMMARY OF VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIOS DELAY AND LOS AM AND PM PEAK HOURS FOR PROJECT USING CITY OF
SOUTH GATE METHODOLOGY
Year 2031 Future
Year 2012 Year 2012 Existing Pre-Project w/ AG & Year 2031 Future Year 2031Future
Existing With Project Rel. Projects With Project With Project Mitigation
Peak V/C or V/C or Change Signif. V/C or V/C or Change Signif. V/C or Change
No. Intersection Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS V/C /a/ Impact Delay LOS Delay LOS V/C /b/ Impact Delay LOS V/C /c/ Mitigated
Firestone Blvd. /b/ PM 0.979 E 0.986 E 0.007 No 1.316 F 1.323 F 0.007 No 1.323 F 0.007 ---
18
Southern Ave. /b/ PM 0.695 B 0.697 B 0.002 No 0.846 D 0.848 D 0.002 No 0.848 D 0.002 ---
Long Beach Blvd./ AM 0.779 C 0.785 C 0.006 No 0.965 E 0.970 E 0.005 No 0.970 E 0.005 ---
19
Tweedy Blvd. /b/ PM 0.714 C 0.718 C 0.004 No 0.907 E 0.911 E 0.004 No 0.911 E 0.004 ---
Garden View Ave./ AM 0.642 B 0.654 B 0.012 No 0.793 C 0.805 D 0.012 No 0.805 D 0.012 ---
20
Firestone Blvd. PM 0.644 B 0.647 B 0.003 No 0.843 D 0.846 D 0.003 No 0.846 D 0.003 ---
State St./ AM 0.634 B 0.635 B 0.001 No 0.729 C 0.730 C 0.001 No 0.730 C 0.001 ---
21
Santa Ana St. /b/ PM 0.687 B 0.688 B 0.001 No 0.793 C 0.795 C 0.002 No 0.795 C 0.002 ---
22
Independence Ave. /b/ PM 0.624 B 0.628 B 0.004 No 0.732 C 0.736 C 0.004 No 0.736 C 0.004 ---
23
Ardmore Ave. /b/ PM 0.607 B 0.623 B 0.016 No 0.711 C 0.727 C 0.016 No 0.727 C 0.016 ---
State St./ AM 0.837 D 0.850 D 0.013 No 1.028 F 1.041 F 0.013 No 1.041 F 0.013 ---
24
California Ave./ AM 0.839 D 0.854 D 0.015 No 1.029 F 1.044 F 0.015 No 1.044 F 0.015 ---
25
Firestone Blvd. /b/ PM 0.810 D 0.816 D 0.006 No 1.071 F 1.076 F 0.005 No 1.076 F 0.005 ---
Otis St./ AM 0.943 E 0.958 E 0.015 No 1.151 F 1.166 F 0.015 No 1.166 F 0.015 ---
26
Firestone Blvd. /b/ PM 0.871 D 0.876 D 0.005 No 1.172 F 1.177 F 0.005 No 1.177 F 0.005 ---
Rheem Ave.-Alexander AM 0.797 C 0.801 D 0.004 No 0.969 E 0.973 E 0.004 No 0.973 E 0.004 ---
27 Ave./
PM 0.750 C 0.755 C 0.005 No 1.005 F 1.010 F 0.005 No 1.010 F 0.005 ---
Firestone Blvd. /b/
Atlantic Ave./ AM 0.936 E 0.950 E 0.014 No 1.162 F 1.176 F 0.014 No 1.176 F 0.014 ---
28
Rayo Ave./ Firestone Blvd. AM 0.744 C 0.746 C 0.002 No 0.884 D 0.886 D 0.002 No 0.886 D 0.002 ---
29
/b/ PM 0.780 C 0.781 C 0.001 No 1.004 F 1.005 F 0.001 No 1.005 F 0.001 ---
I-710 Southbound AM 0.807 D 0.818 D 0.011 No 0.984 E 0.995 E 0.011 No 0.995 E 0.011 ---
30
Ramps/Firestone Blvd. /b/ PM 0.895 D 0.896 D 0.001 No 1.129 F 1.134 F 0.005 No 1.134 F 0.005 ---
I-710 Northbound AM 0.820 D 0.822 D 0.002 No 0.995 E 0.997 E 0.002 No 0.997 E 0.002 ---
31
Ramps/Firestone Blvd. /b/ PM 0.915 E 0.916 E 0.001 No 1.155 F 1.156 F 0.001 No 1.156 F 0.001 ---
Note: AG=Ambient Growth
/a/County of Los Angeles Intersection
/b/City of South Gate Intersection
/c/Two-Way Stop Control Intersection
/d/All-Way Stop Control Intersection
taha 2012-090 4.12-30

Proposed Project Traffic Analysis

Existing With Project Conditions. As shown in Table 4.12-11 above, application of the City of South
Gate’s significant impact threshold criteria in the Existing With Project scenario indicates that the proposed
project is expected to result in significant impacts at three of the 31 study intersections during weekday
conditions. Existing With Project traffic volumes at the study intersections during the weekday AM and PM
peak hours are illustrated in Figures 4.12-8 and 4.12-9, respectively. The following three study intersections
are expected to be significantly impacted during the AM and/or PM peak hours in the Existing With Project
scenario:
• Intersection No. 4: Alameda Street/Firestone Boulevard (PM peak hour)
• Intersection No. 8: Santa Fe Avenue/Project Driveway-Ardmore Avenue (AM & PM peak hours)
• Intersection No. 10: Santa Fe Avenue/Firestone Boulevard (AM peak hour)
Incremental but not significant impacts are noted at the remaining 28 study intersections. Nonetheless,
without mitigation, the proposed project would result in significant impacts to Intersection Nos. 4, 8, and 10
under Existing With Proposed Project Condition.
Year 2031 Without Project Conditions. The v/c ratios and delay values at the study intersections are
incrementally increased with the addition of ambient growth plus traffic generated by the related projects.
As presented in Table 4.12-11, 13 of the 31 study intersections are expected to continue operating at LOS D
or better during the Year 2031 weekday AM and/or PM peak hours with the addition of ambient traffic
growth and traffic due to the related projects. The remaining 18 study intersections are expected to operate at
LOS E or F during the AM and/or PM peak hours with the addition of ambient traffic and traffic due to the
related projects.
Year 2031 With Proposed Project Conditions. As shown in Table 4.12-11, application of the City of
South Gate’s significant impact threshold criteria in the Year 2031 With Project scenario indicates that the
proposed project is expected to result in significant impacts at four of the 31 study intersections during
weekday conditions. The Year 2031 With Project traffic volumes at the study intersections during the
weekday AM and PM peak hours are illustrated in Figures 4.12-10 and 4.12-11, respectively. The four
study intersections anticipated to be significantly impacted during the AM and PM peak hours in the Year
2031 With Project Conditions are as follows:
• Intersection No. 4: Alameda Street/Firestone Boulevard (PM peak hour)
• Intersection No. 8: Santa Fe Avenue/Project Driveway-Ardmore Avenue (AM and PM peak hours)
• Intersection No. 9: Santa Fe Avenue/Project Driveway-Orchard Place (PM peak hour)
• Intersection No. 10: Santa Fe Avenue/Firestone Boulevard (AM and PM peak hours)
Incremental but not significant impacts are noted at the remaining 27 study intersections. Nonetheless,
without mitigation, the proposed project would result in significant impacts at Intersection Nos. 4, 8, 9 and
10 under Year 2031 With Proposed Project Conditions.
County of Los Angeles Traffic Analysis

As discussed previously, an analysis was prepared using the County of Los Angeles ICU method for the
seven study intersections located either partially or solely within the County of Los Angeles. The traffic
impact analysis prepared for the County of Los Angeles study intersections using the ICU methodology and
application of the County of Los Angeles significant traffic impact criteria is summarized in Table 4.12-12
for the project conditions.
taha 2012-090 4.12-31

Not to N
LEGEND: SCALE
Project Site
taha 2012-090
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report EXISTING WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Not to N
LEGEND: SCALE
Project Site
taha 2012-090
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report EXISTING WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Not to N
LEGEND: SCALE
Project Site
taha 2012-090
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report YEAR 2031 WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Not to N
LEGEND: SCALE
Project Site
taha 2012-090
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report YEAR 2031 WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
TABLE 4.12-12: SUMMARY OF VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIOS AND LOS – WEEKDAY AM AND PM PEAK HOURS PROJECT CONDITIONS
USING COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES METHODOLOGY
Year 2012 Year 2031 Year 2031 Year 2031 Year 2031 Year 2031
Existing With Ambient Growth With Project With Project Mitigation With Related Projects With Regional Mitigation
N Peak Change Signif. Change Change Signif. Change
o Intersection Hour V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C Impact V/C LOS V/C Mit. V/C LOS V/C Impact V/C LOS V/C Mit.
Fir Ave./ AM 0.521 A 0.590 A 0.592 A 0.002 No 0.592 A 0.002 --- 0.603 B 0.013 No 0.603 B 0.013 ---
1
Firestone Blvd. PM 0.494 A 0.558 A 0.564 A 0.006 No 0.564 A 0.006 --- 0.594 A 0.036 No 0.594 A 0.036 ---
Ivy St.-Manchester AM 0.414 A 0.465 A 0.468 A 0.003 No 0.468 A 0.003 --- 0.479 A 0.014 No 0.479 A 0.014 ---
2
Ave./Firestone Blvd. PM 0.484 A 0.546 A 0.552 A 0.006 No 0.552 A 0.006 --- 0.574 A 0.028 No 0.574 A 0.028 ---
Alameda St./ AM 0.830 D 0.948 E 0.948 E 0.000 No 0.948 E 0.000 --- 0.987 E 0.039 Yes 0.987 E 0.039 No
3
Nadeau St. PM 0.845 D 0.965 E 0.968 E 0.003 No 0.968 E 0.003 --- 1.020 F 0.055 Yes 1.020 F 0.055 No
Alameda St./ AM 0.874 D 0.999 E 1.012 F 0.013 Yes 1.012 F 0.013 No 1.110 F 0.111 Yes 1.110 F 0.111 No
4
Firestone Blvd. PM 0.909 E 1.040 F 1.060 F 0.020 Yes 1.060 F 0.020 No 1.262 F 0.222 Yes 1.262 F 0.222 No
Alameda St./92nd St.- AM 0.716 C 0.816 D 0.818 D 0.002 No 0.818 D 0.002 --- 0.857 D 0.041 Yes 0.857 D 0.041 No
5
Southern Ave. PM 0.847 D 0.967 E 0.967 E 0.000 No 0.967 E 0.000 --- 1.028 F 0.061 Yes 1.028 F 0.061 No
-
AM 0.759 C 0.865 D 0.868 D 0.003 No 0.868 D 0.003 --- 0.848 D -0.017 No 0.848 D ---
Alameda St./ 0.017
6
Tweedy Blvd. -
PM 0.839 D 0.958 E 0.961 E 0.003 No 0.961 E 0.003 --- 0.957 E -0.001 No 0.957 E ---
0.001
Pacific Blvd./ AM 0.621 B 0.705 C 0.705 C 0.000 No 0.705 C 0.000 --- 0.719 C 0.014 No 0.719 C 0.014 ---
12
Broadway PM 0.751 C 0.856 D 0.858 D 0.002 No 0.858 D 0.002 --- 0.888 D 0.032 Yes 0.888 D 0.032 No
SOURCE: Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers, Traffic Impact Study Firestone 2013 Educational Center Master Plan, November 21, 2013.
taha 2012-090 4.12-36

Proposed Project Traffic Analysis
Year 2031 With Ambient Growth Conditions. Growth in traffic due to the combined effects of continuing
development, intensification of existing development, and other factors, were assumed to be 0.85 percent per
year through 2031 resulting in a 16.15 percent increase in background ambient traffic growth. This ambient
growth incrementally increases the v/c ratios at the County of Los Angeles study intersections. As presented
in Table 4.12-12, three of the seven County of Los Angeles study intersections are expected to continue
operating at LOS D or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. The remaining four intersections
are expected to operate at LOS E or F during the AM and/or PM peak hours.
Year 2031 With Project Conditions. As shown in Table 4.12-12, application of the County of Los
Angeles’ threshold criteria to the Year 2031 With Project Scenario indicates that one County study
intersection is anticipated to be significantly impacted by the proposed project during the PM peak hour. The
proposed project is forecasted to significantly impact the following County of Los Angeles study intersection
based on application of the County impact criteria:
• Intersection No. 4: Alameda Street/Firestone Boulevard (AM and PM peak hours)
As indicated in Table 4.12-12, incremental but not significant changes in v/c ratios are noted at the
remaining six County of Los Angeles study intersections due to the proposed project. Nonetheless, without
mitigation, the proposed project would result in a significant impact to Intersection No. 4 under Year 2031
With Project Condition.
Year 2031 Cumulative Conditions. The v/c ratios at the County of Los Angeles study intersections are
incrementally increased with the addition of traffic generated by the related projects. As shown in
Table 4.12-12, application of the County’s threshold criteria to the Year 2031 With Related Projects scenario
indicates that the cumulative developments in the project vicinity are expected to result in cumulative
impacts at the following four County of Los Angeles study intersections:
• Intersection No. 3: Alameda Street/Nadeau Street (AM and PM peak hours)
• Intersection No. 4: Alameda Street/Firestone Boulevard (AM and PM peak hours)
• Intersection No. 5: Alameda Street/92nd Street-Southern Avenue (AM and PM peak hours)
• Intersection No. 12: Pacific Boulevard/Broadway (PM peak hour)
As indicated in Table 4.12-12, incremental but not significant changes in v/c ratios are noted at the
remaining three County of Los Angeles study intersections due to the cumulative developments in the project
vicinity. Nonetheless, without mitigation, the proposed project in combination with cumulative development
would result in significant cumulative impacts at four County of Los Angeles study intersections;
Intersection Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 12.
Interim Firestone Boulevard Access Scheme

Due to the offset between the existing shared access driveway and Calden Avenue, the lack of LACCD
ownership to the west of the site’s westerly property line (i.e., the area across from Calden Avenue), and the
approved Calden Avenue/Firestone Boulevard traffic signal installation, an analysis of an interim condition
in which the existing shared access point along the north side of Firestone Boulevard will remain and be
signalized and operated in conjunction with the Calden Avenue/Firestone Boulevard traffic signal (i.e., in an
offset configuration) was conducted. Based on coordination with the City, under the interim condition, all
vehicular turning movements will continue to be allowed at the joint traffic signal and the existing shared
access driveway will accommodate both LACCD-related traffic as well as traffic associated with the
potential reuse of the adjacent HON site (i.e., as manufacturing/ warehousing uses under near-term
conditions).
taha 2012-090 4.12-37

Since a breakdown of floor area associated with the potential re-occupancy of the HON site cannot be
determined at this time, for purposes of the near-term analysis conditions it is assumed that half of the HON
building floor area will be re-occupied as manufacturing use and the remaining half as warehousing use. In
addition, the interim analysis condition focuses on 2019 (i.e., approximately one year after the completion of
project construction) but conservatively assumes project-related traffic based on the maximum student
enrollment which is highly unlikely. The new FEC facility is envisioned to initially have approximately
5,000 students in 2019 and the maximum enrollment of 9,000 students would likely not be achieved until
2031. Thus, incorporating project-related traffic based on the maximum student enrollment by 2019
provides a very conservative assessment of traffic operations at this location. It should be noted that under
the interim analysis condition, two exiting travel lanes (i.e., one left-turn only lane and one right-turn only
lane) would be provided at the existing shared access point (i.e., southbound approach). This interim
Firestone Boulevard access scheme analysis is provided for informational purposes only.
The following provides a summary of the anticipated intersection LOS employing the ICU methodology
under Year 2019 Future With Project and Interim Firestone Boulevard Access Conditions:
• AM Peak Hour: v/c = 0.891, LOS D
• PM Peak Hour: v/c = 0.846, LOS D
In addition to the intersection capacity analysis, this interim condition analysis also includes an operational
evaluation of the subject Project Driveway-Calden Avenue/Firestone Boulevard intersection given
signalization in the proposed offset configuration. The operational analysis has been prepared using the
Synchro 8 software. Specific elements such as the proposed lane configurations, lane widths, offset distance
between the shared access driveway and Calden Avenue, storage lengths, crosswalk locations, posted speed
limits, recommended traffic signal phasing, signal cycle length, traffic volumes, etc., have all been coded as
part of the Year 2019 Future With Project AM and PM peak hour Synchro networks.
The following provides a summary of the anticipated intersection operations based on the Synchro analysis
under Year 2019 Future With Project and Interim Firestone Boulevard Access Conditions:
• AM Peak Hour: Delay = 26.3 seconds/vehicle, LOS C
• PM Peak Hour: Delay = 25.7 seconds/vehicle, LOS C
Based on the findings of the traffic study, the interim Firestone Boulevard access scheme (i.e., joint
signalization of the Project Driveway-Calden Avenue/Firestone Boulevard intersection under an offset
configuration) would accommodate the traffic volume forecasts under the Year 2019 Future With Project
Conditions. Furthermore, it is important to note that the above interim access scheme analyses also do not
assume the General Plan 2035 Mobility Element improvements (i.e., three through travel lanes in both the
eastbound and westbound directions along Firestone Boulevard) which is consistent with the analysis
prepared under Year 2031 Analysis Conditions, however they do reflect attainment by 2019 of the maximum
student enrollment of 9,000 students. The intersection operations would further improve during the weekday
AM and PM peak hours when the General Plan improvements are completed and implemented.
The criteria for determining a significant transportation impact is listed below:

• A significant transportation impact occurs when the proposed project increases traffic demand on a CMP
facility by two percent of capacity (v/c ≥ 0.02), causing or worsening LOS F (v/c ≥ 1.00).
The CMP impact criteria apply for analysis of both freeway and intersection monitoring locations.
taha 2012-090 4.12-38

Intersections. The CMP TIA guidelines require that intersection monitoring locations must be examined if
the proposed project will add 50 or more trips during either the AM or PM weekday peak hours. The
following CMP intersection monitoring locations in the project vicinity have been identified based on the
corresponding forecast project-related trips assigned to the intersection during the AM and PM peak hours as
summarized in Table 4.12-13.
TABLE 4.12-13: CMP TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

CMP Peak Forecast CMP Traffic Impact CMP Traffic Impact
Station Location Hour Project Trips Assessment Threshold Assessment Required?
Alameda St./ AM 94 50 Required
No. 143
Firestone Blvd. /a/ PM 70 50 Required
Atlantic Ave./ AM 65 50 Required
No. 144
Firestone Blvd. /b/ PM 48 50 N/A
/a/ Study Intersection No. 4
/b/ Study Intersection No. 28
As shown in Table 4.12-13, the proposed project is anticipated to add more than 50 trips at the identified
CMP intersections during the AM and/or PM peak hours. A review of potential impacts at the two CMP
monitoring intersections has been prepared.
The review of potential impacts at the two CMP monitoring intersections is based on the overall analysis
prepared for the proposed project and application of the CMP threshold criteria. The application of the CMP
threshold criteria to CMP Station 143: Alameda Street/Firestone Boulevard (study intersection No. 4)
indicates that the proposed project is expected to result in a significant impact during the weekday PM peak
hour. Incremental but not significant impacts are noted at CMP Station 144: Atlantic Avenue/Firestone
Boulevard (study intersection No. 28) during both the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Nonetheless,
without mitigation, the proposed project would result in a significant impact related to the Congestion
Management Plan.
Freeways. The following CMP freeway monitoring locations in the study area have been identified:
CMP Station Segment
No. 1043 I-105 Freeway west of I-710 & east of Harris Avenue
No. 1046 I-110 Freeway at Manchester Avenue
No. 1080 I-710 Freeway north of Firestone Boulevard
The CMP TIA guidelines require that freeway monitoring locations must be examined if the proposed project
will add 150 or more trips (in either direction) during either the weekday AM or PM peak hours. The
proposed project will not add 150 or more trips (in either direction) during either the weekday AM or PM
peak hours to the CMP freeway monitoring locations. Accordingly, no further review of potential impacts to
CMP freeways is required. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts
related to CMP freeway monitoring locations.

The proposed site access scheme for the proposed project is displayed in Figure 3-3 in Chapter 3.0 Project
Description. Primary vehicular access to the project site will be provided via two proposed signalized access
point: one along the west side of Santa Fe Avenue opposite Ardmore Avenue and one along the north side of
Firestone Boulevard at the existing shared access driveway.
Santa Fe Avenue Proposed Signalized Driveway (Opposite Ardmore Avenue). This primary access
point is located along the west side of Santa Fe Avenue, opposite Ardmore Avenue. This driveway is
proposed to be signalized and will serve as the main vehicular access point to/from the project parking
taha 2012-090 4.12-39

structure. It is anticipated that this driveway will have the highest traffic volumes of all the campus entries.
Two inbound travel lanes and two outbound travel lanes are proposed so as to facilitate traffic flow along
Santa Fe Avenue as well as to minimize any potential vehicle queuing into and out of the proposed parking
structure. Consistent with current practice and parking designs at other LACCD parking structure facilities,
the proposed parking structure access points will not be gate controlled (i.e., free flow inbound and outbound
movements are anticipated). Thus, with the two inbound lanes proposed at this driveway, vehicular queuing
back out onto Santa Fe Avenue towards the UPRR right-of-way (i.e., north of the driveway) is not
anticipated. Furthermore, it is anticipated that the majority of project traffic utilizing the proposed driveway
on Santa Fe Avenue will originate from and be destined to the south, based on a detailed review of the
existing South Gate Education Center student population zip code data and the locations of surrounding
major traffic corridors. An approximately 240-foot northbound left turn storage/pocket on Santa Fe Avenue
will be provided for entering FEC motorists. The proposed project site driveway along Santa Fe Avenue will
be constructed to City of South Gate design standards.
Firestone Boulevard Proposed Signalized Driveway (east of Calden Avenue). This access point is located
along the north side of Firestone Boulevard, approximately 135 feet east of Calden Avenue (as measured
from the centerline of the driveway to the centerline of Calden Avenue). Based on information provided by
the City of South Gate pursuant to the Conditions of Approval of the nearby Calden Court Apartments
project, a traffic signal has been approved for installation at the intersection of Calden Avenue and Firestone
Boulevard. In addition, if and when redevelopment of the adjacent HON site occurs (i.e., to be potentially
redeveloped in the long-term conditions as a shopping center), it is assumed that the Applicant of the HON
project will be required to tie into the Calden Avenue/Firestone Boulevard traffic signal and construct the
fourth leg of the intersection (i.e., in the area directly across from Calden Avenue which is under HON
ownership). Under this condition, the existing shared access point on Firestone Boulevard would likely be
closed and the north leg of the signalized Calden Avenue/Firestone Boulevard intersection would facilitate
vehicular access for both the redeveloped HON shopping center and the proposed project.
Due to the offset between the existing shared access driveway and Calden Avenue, the lack of LACCD
ownership to the west of the project site’s westerly property line (i.e., the area across from Calden Avenue),
and the approved Calden Avenue/Firestone Boulevard traffic signal installation, the traffic study includes an
analysis of an interim condition in which the existing shared access point along the north side of Firestone
Boulevard will remain and be signalized and operated in conjunction with the Calden Avenue/Firestone
Boulevard traffic signal (i.e., in an offset configuration). Based on coordination with the City, under the
interim condition, all vehicular turning movements will continue to be allowed at the joint traffic signal and
the existing shared access driveway will accommodate both LACCD-related traffic, as well as traffic
associated with the potential reuse of the adjacent HON site (i.e., as manufacturing/warehousing uses under
near-term conditions).
In addition to the primary access points described above, a driveway is proposed along the west side of Santa
Fe Avenue opposite Orchard Place and just north of Building 3 to provide access for fire/emergency
vehicles, delivery vehicles, and potential visitors/guests of the proposed FEC facility. This driveway is not
proposed to be signalized. Because the proposed FEC will be visible from Santa Fe Avenue and not
Firestone Boulevard, the main entries will be from Santa Fe Avenue, with the northern Santa Fe Avenue
driveway providing direct access to the parking structure and the southern Santa Fe Avenue driveway serving
as the “front door” entry to the campus for visitors. Although the southern Santa Fe Avenue driveway is
referred to as the front door entry, it is anticipated that traffic volumes would be less at this driveway than at
other entries.
It should be noted that the existing truck yard north of Building 3 will be eliminated to accommodate the
proposed project. The loading docks located along the north and west sides of Building 3 and the loading
docks and truck ramp along the west side of Building 1 will remain in place, but will not be utilized in order
to create a suitable entry to the proposed FEC. Truck access will no longer be allowed. Loading docks along
taha 2012-090 4.12-40

the south and east sides of Building 1 and east side of Building 3 will continue to be utilized. As Building 3
is connected internally to Building 1, Building 1’s loading docks may also be utilized by Building 3.
The proposed project includes a new 28-foot-wide roadway to provide vehicular circulation within the
campus. As shown in Figure 3-3 in Chapter 3.0 Project Description, this roadway follows the internal
perimeter of Building 3 (west and north sides) and provides vehicular connections between the main
driveway on Firestone Boulevard, the proposed surface parking, the proposed parking structure and the
proposed driveway on Santa Fe Avenue opposite Orchard Place. The proposed roadway will have sidewalks,
and pull-out lanes for passenger drop-offs. The surface parking lot will allow for vehicles to turn-around and
return to the entry from which they entered the site. Fire lanes, 20 feet wide, would be provided to the north
and west of the proposed parking structure. Fire truck access to within 150 feet of all building exterior walls
would be provided via the internal roadway, designated fire lanes, and City streets in compliance with Los
Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) requirements. If required by the overall configuration of the
FEC campus, fire truck turnarounds may be incorporated into campus open space. As such, the proposed
project would provide adequate emergency access.
As described above, loading docks along the west sides of Buildings 1 and 3, and the north side of Building 3
will no longer be utilized under the proposed project and truck access will no longer be allowed, north of
Building 1. However, loading docks along the south side of Building 1 and the east sides of Buildings 1 and
3 would continue to be utilized. Loading docks along the south side of Building 1 would be accessed from
the Firestone driveway. Trucks utilizing these loading docks would briefly share the driveway and proposed
roadway with vehicles accessing the FEC campus. Loading docks along the east side of these buildings
would be accessed from Santa Fe Avenue, immediately south of the proposed driveway on Santa Fe Avenue
opposite Orchard Place. With the exception of the southerly end of the Firestone driveway, trucks utilizing
the remaining loadings docks would not interface with vehicles accessing the FEC campus via the proposed
roadway. Trucks would utilize the remaining truck yards located south of Building 1 and along Santa Fe
Avenue, east of Buildings 1 and 3, and would be directly accessible from City streets. As such, the proposed
project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses. Additionally,
The proposed project would incorporate the requirements of the LACFD and the LASD for emergency
access, and driveways will be constructed to City of South Gate design standards. Therefore, the proposed
project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to circulation hazards and emergency access.

The proposed project has been designed to encourage the use of public transit, and walking and bicycling as
a transportation mode. A key concept and component of the City’s General Plan is the introduction and
operation of a local bus transit service with convenient bus transfer points that would circulate around the
City connecting residential neighborhoods to key commercial, institutional, and recreational destinations.
The City’s General Plan Mobility Element designates Firestone Boulevard as a Primary Transit Street. As
discussed in the Existing Setting, there are many bus lines within the vicinity of the project study area. In
addition, the closest Metro Blue Line Station, the Firestone Station, is located approximately one mile to the
west. Students, faculty and staff of the FEC project can utilize the Blue Line train service to access the site
via a single transfer to existing bus/transit service along Firestone Boulevard. LACCD also provides a
shuttle between the main ELAC campus and the Firestone Educational Center. While the student and
employment population would increase due to the proposed project, potentially increasing demand for public
transit, there is sufficient transit system capacity to absorb the needs of the new population and increased use
of public transit is desired by both the LACCD and the City of South Gate.2
Walkability is a term for the extent to which walking is readily available as a safe, connected, accessible and
pleasant mode of transport. There are five basic requirements that are widely accepted as key aspects of the
2
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers, Traffic Impact Study Firestone Educational Center Master Plan, November 21, 2013.
taha 2012-090 4.12-41

walkability of urban areas that should be satisfied. The underlying principle is that pedestrians should not be
delayed, diverted, or placed in danger. The five primary characteristics of walkability are as follows:3
 Connectivity: People can walk from one place to another without encountering major obstacles,
obstructions, or loss of connectivity.
 Convivial: Pedestrian routes are friendly and attractive, and are perceived as such by pedestrians.
 Conspicuous: Suitable levels of lighting, visibility and surveillance over its entire length, with high
quality delineation and signage.
 Comfortable: High quality and well-maintained footpaths of suitable widths, attractive landscaping and
architecture, shelter and rest spaces, and a suitable allocation of road space to pedestrians.
 Convenient: Walking is a realistic travel choice, partly because of the impact of the other criteria set
forth above, but also because walking routes are of a suitable length as a result of land use planning with
minimal delays.
A review of the Conceptual Site Plan and nearby pedestrian walkway network indicates that these five
primary characteristics are accommodated as part of the proposed project. The pedestrian walkways and the
adjacent sidewalks are designed to provide a friendly walking environment. The project site is adjacent to
and accessible from nearby commercial uses (e.g., retail, restaurant, etc.) and other amenities along the Santa
Fe Avenue and Firestone Boulevard corridors, as well as adjacent public bus transit stops. Metro transit stops
are located adjacent to the project site with routes that serve the Santa Fe Avenue and Firestone Boulevard
corridors which offer convenient pedestrian access into and out of the project site. Sidewalks are provided
along all key roadways in the project vicinity and pedestrian crosswalks are provided at the existing
signalized intersections near the project site. Additionally, crosswalks are also proposed to be provided at
the two new signalized driveways to facilitate pedestrian access across Santa Fe Avenue and Firestone
Boulevard.
The City’s General Plan Mobility Element designates the project site as a future bicycle hub and identifies
Santa Fe Avenue, adjacent to the project site, as a Class II – Bike Lane between Independence/Ardmore
Avenues and Southern Avenue. However, no bicycle facilities are currently provided in the immediately
vicinity of the project site. Regardless, the FEC will provide bicycle racks and related amenities as required
by the City. Given the educational nature of the proposed project, the focus on the encouragement of
students to utilize public transportation and alternative modes of transportation (e.g., bicycling and walking),
and the design team’s effort to make the project consistent with and in support of the principles of the City’s
General Plan, bicycle integration has been carefully considered in the project’s design. Accordingly, in
consideration of the project site’s location and proposed design features, the proposed project would facilitate
pedestrian activity, bicycle usage and use of public transit services. Therefore, the proposed project would
result in less-than-significant impacts related to public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities.
MITIGATION MEASURES
CONSTRUCTION
Impacts related to the circulation system, Congestion Management Plan, vehicle and pedestrian site access,
and public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are
required.
3
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers, Traffic Impact Study Firestone Educational Center Master Plan, November 21, 2013.
taha 2012-090 4.12-42

OPERATIONS
Circulation System
Mitigation Measures for City of South Gate Study Locations
Intersection No. 7: Project Driveway-Calden Avenue/Firestone Boulevard
Intersection No. 7 serves as one of three access points for students, faculty, staff and visitors of the FEC
project. The driveway is currently 32 feet wide, is a shared access point for two entities (LACCD which
owns the project site on the east side of the driveway and HON which owns the adjoining property to the
west of the driveway) and is offset to the east of Calden Avenue. As shown in Table 4.12-10, application of
the City of South Gate’s significant impact threshold criteria indicates that the proposed project is expected
to result in incremental but not significant impacts at this intersection under the Existing With Project
Conditions and the Year 2031 With Project Conditions. However, due to the City approved installation of a
traffic signal at the Calden Avenue/Firestone Boulevard intersection as part of the Calden Court Apartments
project and the City’s requirement against restricting any vehicular turning movements, the City has directed
that the shared access point (between LACCD and HON) at Firestone Boulevard also be signalized and
integrated into the Calden Avenue/Firestone Boulevard traffic signal under a single signal controller. The
City and LACCD have agreed that LACCD’s fairshare contribution to the joint traffic signal design and
installation is 50 percent. Near-term operation under the signalized offset configuration is anticipated to
accommodate existing and future traffic, including the new FEC facility at maximum enrollment, the Calden
Court Apartments project at buildout, the reuse of the HON site (as manufacturing/warehousing uses under
interim conditions), other related development projects in the area, and regional traffic growth. Even though
this study intersection is not anticipated to be significantly impacted by the proposed project utilizing the
City of South Gate’s significant impact threshold criteria, the City and LACCD have agreed to implement the
joint traffic signal. Depending on the construction timing of the FEC project, the Calden Court Apartments,
and the potential redevelopment of the HON site, one of the following options will apply:
 Option 1. If the proposed FEC project is constructed in advance of the Calden Court Apartments project,
the joint traffic signal shall be designed and constructed by LACCD in order to facilitate all turning
movements with the signal in an offset configuration. Appropriate roadway restriping and signage will be
incorporated into the design. One left-turn only lane and one right-turn only lane will be provided at the
joint LACCD/HON access point (i.e., southbound approach of the offset intersection). Based on the
fairshare negotiations between the City of South Gate and LACCD, LACCD would receive a 50 percent
reimbursement of the total design and construction costs from either the Calden Court Apartments project
Applicant and/or the City of South Gate.
 Option 2. If the Calden Court Apartments project proceeds in advance of the proposed FEC project, the
joint traffic signal will be designed and constructed by either the Calden Court Apartments project
Applicant or the City of South Gate in order to facilitate all turning movements with the signal in an
offset configuration. Appropriate roadway restriping and signage will be incorporated into the design.
One left-turn only lane and one right-turn only lane will be provided at the joint LACCD/HON access
point (i.e., southbound approach of the offset intersection). Under this option, LACCD will be
responsible for up to 50 percent of the total design and construction costs associated with the joint traffic
signal installation at such time as the proposed FEC project moves forward.
 Option 3. In the unlikely event that the HON site is redeveloped in advance of the proposed FEC project
and the Calden Court Apartments project, it is assumed that the existing joint LACCD/HON access point
would be signalized and relocated westerly to align opposite Calden Avenue. Under this option,
LACCD would be responsible for up to 50 percent of the cost of the traffic signal. However, LACCD is
not responsible for any potential property acquisition costs and/or any other improvements that may be
required as part of the HON redevelopment project.
taha 2012-090 4.12-43

Intersection No. 8: Santa Fe Avenue/Project Driveway-Ardmore Avenue

TT1 LACCD shall install a traffic signal and construct two inbound travel lanes and two outbound travel
lanes and associated roadway restriping and signage. The outbound (i.e., exiting FEC traffic) travel
lanes shall be configured to provide a shared left/through lane and an exclusive right-turn only lane
while two inbound travel lanes would be provided. In addition, adequate northbound left-turn
storage along Santa Fe Avenue for entering (northbound) FEC motorists shall be provided.
Intersection No. 9: Santa Fe Avenue/Project Driveway-Orchard Place

TT2 LACCD shall restripe the northbound and southbound approaches on Santa Fe Avenue to provide a
northbound left-turn lane and a southbound left-turn lane. This improvement can be accommodated
within the existing Santa Fe Avenue roadway width.

TT3 LACCD shall install eastbound and westbound exclusive right-turn only lanes. The existing
eastbound and westbound combination through-right turn lanes shall be restriped to provide a 10-
foot through lane with a 12-foot wide right-turn only lane for both the eastbound and westbound
approaches. Up to two on-street parking spaces shall also be removed along the north and south
sides of Firestone Boulevard. Additionally, LACCD shall request that the City of South Gate
consider relocation of the existing eastbound near-side bus stop to a far-side bus stop.
On-Site Transportation Demand Management Measures

TT4 LACCD shall implement an enhanced Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for the
proposed project. The measures incorporated into the TDM project shall further decrease the
number of vehicular trips generated by persons traveling to/from the site by offering specific
facilities, services and actions designed to increase the use of alternative transportation modes (e.g.,
transit, rail, walking, bicycling, etc.) and ridesharing. TDM measures may include the following:
 TDM Web Site Information. Transportation information shall be provided in a highly visible
and accessible location on the school’s web site, including links to local transit providers, area
walking, bicycling maps, etc., to inform employees, students and visitors of available alternative
transportation modes to access the campuses and travel in the area. The web site shall also
highlight the environmental benefits of utilization of alternative transportation modes.
 TDM Promotional Material. ELAC shall provide and exhibit in public places information
materials on options for alternative transportation modes and opportunities. In addition, transit
fare media and day/month passes shall be made available to employees, students and visitors
during typical business hours.
 Transit Welcome Package (TWP). All new students and employees of the college shall be
provided with a TWP in addition to holding Transportation Fair each semester. The TWP at a
minimum shall include information regarding ELAC’s arrangement for free or discounted use of
the transit system, area bus/rail transit route information, bicycle facilities (including routes,
rental and sales locations, on-site bicycle racks, walking and biking maps), and convenient local
services and restaurants within walking distance of the ELAC campuses.
 Internet-Based/Independent Study Education. ELAC shall offer internet-based and
independent study classes which allows for a portion or all of the education activities to occur
without students and faculty needing to be physically on-site at an ELAC facility.
 Public Transit Passes. To the extent feasible, ELAC shall offer free or discounted public transit
coordination with various transit providers for all students and staff. The program shall allow
students to be able to use their ELAC identification card for either free or substantially
discounted transit passes.
taha 2012-090 4.12-44

 Carpool Program for Employees. ELAC shall provide preferential parking within the parking
garage for employees who commute to work in ELAC registered carpools. An employee who
drives to work with at least one other employee to the campus may register as a carpool entitled
to preferential parking within the meaning of this provision.
 Public Transit Stop Enhancements. Working in cooperation with other transit agencies and
the City of South Gate, ELAC shall seek to improve existing bus stops with enhanced shelters
and transit information within the immediate vicinity of the Firestone Education Center campus.
Enhancements may include weather protection, lighting, benches, telephones, and trash
receptacles. These improvements would be intended to make riding the bus a safer and more
attractive alternative.
 Convenient Parking for Bicycle Riders. ELAC shall provide locations at the site for
convenient parking for bicycle commuters for working employees, students attending classes,
and visitors. The bicycle parking shall be located within the Firestone Education Center campus
and/or in the public right-of-way adjacent to the campus such that long-term and short-term
parkers can be accommodated. Bicycle parking means bicycle racks, a locked cage, or other
similar parking area. ELAC shall observe utilization of bicycles at the Firestone Education
Center campus each semester and, if necessary, make arrangements for additional bicycle
parking if the demand for bicycle parking spaces exceeds the supply.
 Student Parking Pricing. ELAC shall require that students pay for their own parking.
 Student Hiring Policies. ELAC shall provide preferential consideration to hiring current ELAC
students for part-time employment based on satisfaction of other requirements of the available
positions.
 Local Hiring Program. When hiring, ELAC shall conduct outreach to residents who live within
one mile of the Firestone Education Center campus (or other facility to where the position of
employment is offered), based on satisfaction of other requirements of the available positions.
 Expanded Bicycle Routes. ELAC shall coordinate with the City of South Gate in an effort to
enhance and expand the current network of bicycle routes serving the campus.

No feasible mitigation measures were identified to reduce the significant impact identified at the Alameda
Street/Firestone Boulevard intersection (CMP Station No. 143) during the PM peak hour to less-than-
significant levels.

Impacts related to vehicle and pedestrian site access would be less than significant. No mitigation measures
are required.

Impacts related to public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities would be less than significant. No
mitigation measures are required.
taha 2012-090 4.12-45

CONSTRUCTION
Impacts related to the circulation system, Congestion Management Plan, vehicle and pedestrian site access,
and public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities were determined to be less than significant without
mitigation.
OPERATIONS
Circulation System
Intersection No. 3: Alameda Street/Nadeau Street
No mitigation was determined to be feasible without the acquisition of significant additional right-of-way
which currently does not exist. Therefore, the cumulative AM and PM peak hour traffic impacts identified at
the Alameda Street/Nadeau Street intersection would remain significant and unavoidable for purposes of this
analysis.
Intersection No. 4: Alameda Street/Firestone Boulevard

No mitigation was determined to be feasible without the acquisition of additional right-of-way which
currently is not available. No feasible mitigation measures were identified to reduce project-level and
cumulative significant impacts identified at the Alameda Street/Firestone Boulevard intersection. Therefore,
significant project-level and cumulative AM and PM peak hour traffic impacts would remain significant and
unavoidable for purposes of this analysis.
Intersection No. 5: Alameda Street/92nd Street-Southern Avenue

No mitigation was determined to be feasible without the acquisition of additional right-of-way which
currently does not exist. Therefore, the cumulative AM and PM peak hour traffic impacts identified at the
Alameda Street/92nd Street-Southern Avenue intersection would remain significant and unavoidable for
purposes of this analysis.
Intersection No. 8: Santa Fe Avenue/Project Driveway-Ardmore Avenue

Mitigation measure TT1 would to reduce the proposed project’s significant AM and PM peak hour traffic
impacts to less-than-significant levels at the Santa Fe Avenue/Project Driveway-Ardmore Avenue
intersection.
Intersection No. 9: Santa Fe Avenue/Project Driveway-Orchard Place

The project’s significant weekday PM peak hour traffic impact would remain significant and unavoidable at
the Santa Fe Avenue/Project Driveway-Orchard Place intersection even with implementation of mitigation
measure TT2.

Mitigation measure TT3 would reduce the proposed project’s significant AM and PM peak hour traffic
impacts to less-than-significant levels at the Santa Fe Avenue/Firestone Boulevard intersection.
taha 2012-090 4.12-46

Intersection No. 12: Pacific Boulevard/Broadway

No mitigation was determined to be feasible to reduce the cumulative PM peak hour traffic impact identified
at the Pacific Boulevard/Broadway intersection. Therefore, the cumulative PM peak hour traffic impact at
this location would remain significant and unavoidable for purpose of this analysis.

No feasible mitigation measures were identified to reduce the significant impact identified at the Alameda
Street/Firestone Boulevard intersection (CMP Station No. 143) during the PM peak hour to less-than-
significant levels. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact
related to the Congestion Management Plan.

Impacts related to vehicle and pedestrian site access were determined to be less than significant without
mitigation.

Impacts related to public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities were determined to be less than significant
without mitigation.
taha 2012-090 4.12-47

2013 Firestone Education Center Master Plan 4.13 Utilities & Service Systems
4.13 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

This section provides an overview of utilities and service systems and evaluates construction and operational
impacts associated with the proposed project. Topics addressed include water, wastewater, solid waste, and
energy.
WATER
Federal
There are no federal water regulations applicable to the proposed project.
State
Urban Water Management Planning Act. In 1983, the California Legislature enacted the Urban Water
Management Planning Act, which requires urban water suppliers to develop water management plans to
actively pursue the efficient use of available water supplies. Every five years, water suppliers are required to
develop Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) to identify short- and long-term water demand
management measures to meet growing water demands. The City of South Gate adopted its 2010 UWMP in
June 2011. The proposed project would be required to comply with the requirements of the Urban Water
Management Planning Act.
Local
General Plan 2035 provides policy guidance to ensure the provision of public facilities and services will
support existing and new development in the City. The Public Facilities and Service Systems Element
provide goals, objectives, and policies related to water supply and conservation. Specifically, the Public
Facilities and Service Systems Element goal related to water is to have a water system that meets the
projected demand for all users and seeks way to reduce demand. While California Government Code
regulations, applicable objectives and policies of the City’s General Plan related to water are identified in
Table 4.13-1.
South Gate Municipal Code (SGMC), Chapter 6.64. SGMC Chapter 6.64 is the City’s Water
Conservation Ordinance. The purpose of the Water Conservation Ordinance is to establish a water
conservation and supply shortage program that will reduce water consumption within the City through
conservation, effective water supply planning, reasonable and beneficial use of water, prevent waste of
water, and efficient use of water within the City to avoid and minimize the effect and hardship of water
shortage to the greatest extent possible. In addition, the Water Conservation Ordinance establishes
permanent water conservation standards intended to alter behavior related to water use efficiency for non-
shortage conditions and further establishes three levels of water supply shortage response actions to be
implemented during times of declared water shortage or declared water shortage emergency, with increasing
restrictions on water use in response to worsening drought or emergency conditions and decreasing supplies.
taha 2012-090 4.13-1

TABLE 4.13-1: APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RELATED TO WATER
Objective PF 5.1 Ensure that a reliable water supply can be provided within the City’s service area, while remaining
sensitive to the climate.
Policy P1 The City will maintain water storage, distribution, and treatment infrastructure in good working
condition in order to supply domestic water to all users with adequate quantities, flow and pressure.
Policy P2 The City will promote water conservation by implementing the recommendations of the Urban
Water Management Plan.
Policy P3 The City will support the efforts of the Central Basin Municipal Water District to expand the use of
recycled water in the City.
Policy P4 Water distribution infrastructure will be replaced as needed to improve water delivery and fire flow
as well as to maintain healthy and safe drinking water for all residents and businesses. To the
extent feasible, the replacement should be concurrent with major infrastructure or development
projects within the City.
Objective PF 5.2 Promote water conservation and increase the use of reclaimed and recycled water.
Policy P1 The City will seek to build an integrated system of reclaimed and recycled water.
Policy P7 New development projects should seek opportunities for rainwater capture and reuse.
Policy P8 The City will promote water conservation through site design, use of efficient systems, xeriscape
and other techniques.
Objective PF 5.3 Promote coordination between land use planning and water facilities and service.
Policy P1 The City will be responsible for replacing new distribution water lines, as necessary, to meet the
future needs. Individual development projects will be responsible for the construction of all
necessary on-site water improvements and connecting to the water mains.
Policy P2 The City will collect water impact fees for new development.
Policy P3 The availability of sufficient, reliable water will be taken into account when considering the
approval of new development.
South Gate Municipal Code (SGMC) Chapter 9.46. SGMC Chapter 9.46 is the City’s Development
Impact Fee. The City’s Development Fee is assessed and collected by the City if it is determined that public
water system improvements are reasonably related to new development within the City. If a project is
required to comply with SGMC Chapter 9.46, the Development Impact Fee must be paid prior to the
issuance of a building permit. Development impact fees are not to exceed the proportionate share of the cost
of the City public water system improvements reasonably related to new development. Furthermore, the
Development Impact Fee is not imposed to make up deficiencies in any previously constructed public water
system improvements. The proposed project would be subject to requirements of SGMC Chapter 9.46.
EXISTING SETTING
The City of South Gate provides water service to residents, businesses, and other water users in most of the
City. Water users within the Hollydale Area of the City are served by the Golden State Water Company.
The existing South Gate Education Center (SGEC) and the project site receive water service from the City.
Water Supply
The City’s water supply primarily consists of groundwater. The City augments, generally in emergencies, its
water supply by purchasing water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), the
City of Downey, and the Golden State Water Company. In addition, the City obtains recycled water from the
Central Basin Municipal Water District (CBMWD).
Groundwater. The City obtains groundwater from City wells which pump water from the Central
groundwater basin. Rights to pump water from the Central groundwater basin were legally determined more
than 50 years ago. According to the City’s 2010 UWMP, the City has an adjudicated right to pump a
taha 2012-090 4.13-2

maximum of 11,183 acre-feet per year (afy). 1,2 In addition, the City has interconnections with other agencies
and two connections with the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) to purchase water in the event that the
City exceeds its current water rights and may need to supplement.
Recycled Water. The City of South Gate does not own or operate any water recycling facilities. The City
purchases recycled water from the CBMWD. The CBMWD obtains recycled water from the San Jose Creek
and Coyote Water Reclamation Plants. Both facilities are operated by the Los Angeles County Sanitation
District (LACSD) and are located in the cities of Whittier and Cerritos, respectively. From 1996 to 2010, the
City purchased 2,486 acre feet of recycled water from the CBMWD. 3
Water Supply Treatment and Conveyance Infrastructure

Water generated by groundwater wells is chlorinated and distributed to existing City customers or stored in
elevated or ground-level (either buried or exposed on grade) reservoirs. Supply from the ground-level
reservoirs is pressurized by booster pump stations into the distribution system. The City’s water system is
comprised of 130 miles of main lines, 12 wells (eight of which are active), three booster pump stations , two
elevated water storage tanks, four ground-level water storage tanks, and one underground concrete storage
tank. The total capacity of both active and stand-by wells in the City is 32.97 million gallons per day
(MGD), or 101.19 acre-feet per day. This represents a surplus over the City‘s average daily demand of
9.32 MGD, and the City‘s maximum daily demand of 16.78 MGD. Because the total capacity of existing
wells exceeds maximum daily demand, additional wells are not required. 4
The City operates one water treatment plant facility, the Park Reservoir Spray Aeration Treatment Facility.
The Park Reservoir Spray Aeration Treatment Facility treats 5,500 gallons per minute (gpm) of water from
the City’s wells and has the ability to treat a maximum of eight million gallons per day (gpd) for
tetrachloroethylene (PCE) removal. 5,6
Water Usage
Between 2001 and 2010, the City’s average annual water usage was 97 gallons-per-capita-per-day (gpcd) or
10,267 acre-feet. In 2010, the City’s usage was only 73 gpcd or 8,402 acre-feet. During the fiscal year ending
on June 30, 2011, the City pumped approximately 9,104 acre-feet of groundwater. 7 Table 4.13-2
summarizes recent and projected water demands for the City, as well as expected supply sources through the
year 2035. As shown in Table 4.13-2, the City anticipates that demand for water will exceed current water
rights and demand will be supplemented by water purchased from the MWD.
TABLE 4.13-2: CITY OF SOUTH OF GATE RECENT AND PROJECTED WATER DEMAND AND SUPPLY
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Demand (AFY) 10,745 8,402 11,582 11,939 12,257 12,576 12,894
Groundwater Supply (AFY) 10,745 8,402 11,183 11,183 11,183 11,183 11,183
MWD Supply (AFY) 0 0 399 756 1,074 1,393 1,711
SOURCE: City of South Gate, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, adopted June 2011, page 8.
1
City of South Gate, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, adopted June 2011.
2
One acre-foot of water is equivalent to 325,851 gallons of water.
3
City of South Gate, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, adopted June 2011.
4
Ibid.
5
City of South Gate Department of Public Works, Kev Tcharkhoutian, E-mail correspondence, January 5, 2011.
6
Tetrachloroethylene is a dry colorless liquid that is widely used for dry cleaning fabrics. PCE is a common soil and
groundwater contaminant.
7
California Department of Water Resources – Southern Region, Watermaster Service in the Central Basin Los Angeles
County July 1, 2009-June 30, 2010, October 2010.
taha 2012-090 4.13-3

The project site is currently developed with four buildings totaling approximately 1,067,957 square feet of
building area. Of the total building area, only 504,878 square feet of building area is currently occupied and
utilized for warehousing purposes. The existing SGEC located at the southwest corner of the Calden
Avenue/Firestone Boulevard intersection is approximately 51,000 square feet in size and has an enrollment
of approximately 4,912 students. 8 As shown in Table 4.13-3, existing uses on the project site and the SGEC
use approximately 15,146 gpd (16.66 afy) and 117,888 gpd (129.68 afy) of water, respectively. This
estimated water usage represents less than 0.01 and about 1.16 percent of the maximum volume of
groundwater the City can pump annually, respectively.
TABLE 4.13-3: ESTIMATED WATER USAGE OF EXISTING USES AT THE PROJECT SITE AND THE
SOUTH GATE EDUCATION CENTER
Water Usage Rate Water Usage
Use Quantity Units (gpd/unit) /a, b/ (gpd) /c/
PROJECT SITE
Building 1 - Warehouse 234,152 square feet 0.03 7,024.56
Building 2 - Vacant 0 square feet 0 0
Estimated Total Water Usage of Existing Uses at the Project Site 15,146.34
EXISTING SOUTH GATE EDUCATION CENTER
SGEC 4,912 students 24 117,888
Estimated Total Water Usage at the SGEC 117,888
/a/ Water usage rates were derived from the wastewater generation rates of the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, Table 1: Loadings for Each
Class of Land Use, which is available at http://www.lacsd.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3531.
/b/ Water usage rates are 120 percent of the LACSD sewage generation rates.
/c/ Assumes that Buildings 2, 3, and 4 are vacant and thus does not use water.
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
The project site is served by two domestic water meters, two off-site fire hydrants, and seven on-site fire
hydrants. The two domestic water meters are two inches in diameter and have a flow capacity of 160 gpm.
The two off-site fire hydrants are located along Firestone Boulevard and Santa Fe Avenue. The off-site fire
hydrants are four inches in diameter and have a fire flow capacity of 2,648 and 2,307 gpm at 20 pounds per
square inch, respectively.
impact related to water demand and/or conveyance infrastructure if it would:
• Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resource, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed and/or
• Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
8
Research, on November 19, 2012.
taha 2012-090 4.13-4

IMPACTS
CONSTRUCTION
Water Supply
The demand for water during the construction of the proposed project would be short-term. Water usage during
construction would be associated with dust control, concrete mixer(s), truck cleanout, equipment cleaning, and
other construction activities. These construction activities would occur incrementally throughout the
construction of the proposed project. The amount of water used during construction would vary with daily
conditions and activity. Overall, water demand for demolition and construction activities would be minimal,
and construction activities would not have a significant impact on available water supplies. Therefore, the
proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to water supply.

As discussed above, water demand for demolition and construction activities would be minimal and short-
term in nature. The nature of the proposed project construction would not cause the City to construct new or
expand existing water supply treatment and/or conveyance infrastructure. Therefore, the proposed project
would result in less-than-significant impacts related to water supply treatment and conveyance infrastructure.
OPERATIONS
Water Supply
The proposed project would replace the existing 220,550-square-foot Building 4 and its connections to
Building 3 with a new 100,000-gross-square-foot building and an approximately 1,600-space parking
structure. The proposed Firestone Education Center (FEC) would accommodate up to 9,000 students.
Existing uses within Building 4 would move to Buildings 1 or 3. All existing uses currently occurring on the
project site would continue with implementation of the proposed project.
The proposed project would increase the demand for water from the City’s water system. However, in
accordance with LACCD directives, the FEC building will be designed and constructed using the United
States Green Building Council (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) - New
Construction rating system, with the goal of reaching the highest certification level feasible. As part of
achieving a LEED certification, the proposed project would implement water efficiency design strategies
such as low-flow plumbing fixtures (i.e., faucets, toilets, urinals, and shower heads) to reduce potable water
usage. As shown in Table 4.13-4, operation of the proposed project would increase water demand on the
project site by 216,000 gpd (237.6 afy) of water when operating at maximum student capacity.
TABLE 4.13-4: ESTIMATED INCREASE IN WATER USAGE AT THE PROJECT SITE

Use Quantity Units (gpd/unit) /a, b/ (gpd)
Proposed Firestone Education Center 9,000 students 24 216,000
Net Increase in Water Usage at the Project Site 216,000
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
taha 2012-090 4.13-5

The estimated increase in water usage at the project site represents about 2.12 percent of the City’s estimated
available groundwater supply in 2010. 9 However, as shown in Table 4.13-2 above, the City’s demand for
water will exceed its current water rights in 2030, when the proposed FEC is anticipated to be operating at
near capacity. To supplement demand, the City intends to purchase water from the MWD for which
connections already exist. Accordingly, the proposed project is not anticipated to cause the City to expand, or
obtain, new water entitlements to serve the proposed project, as increased demand for water in the City has
already been anticipated and planned for. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less-than-
significant impacts related to water supply.

The net water usage of the proposed project would increase the amount of water that is treated by the Park
Reservoir Spray Aeration Treatment Facility and conveyed through the City’s water distribution system to
the project site. With implementation of the proposed project, the net water usage would be approximately
one percent of the daily treatment capacity of the Park Reservoir Spray Aeration Treatment Facility. The
increase in water usage could require the expansion of the City’s existing water treatment facility and
conveyance infrastructure and/or could require the construction of new water conveyance infrastructure.
However, prior to construction, the LACCD would provide the City of South Gate Public Works Department
(SGPWD) building plans for review and approval. Any additional water service connections and on-site
water distribution design features identified by the SGPWD would be incorporated in the final design plans
to ensure water conveyance infrastructure has adequate capacity to sufficiently serve the proposed project.
The new building would have a fire service line of at least six inches and would receive water from the
existing City water main beneath Santa Fe Avenue. In addition, all necessary City water system
improvements would comply with SGMC Chapter 9.46, and all required approvals related to fire flow and
on-site fire hydrants would be obtained from the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD). Therefore,
the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to water supply treatment and
infrastructure.
MITIGATION MEASURES
CONSTRUCTION
Impacts related to water supply, water supply treatment, and conveyance infrastructure would be less than
OPERATIONS
Impacts related to water supply, water supply treatment, and conveyance infrastructure would be less than

CONSTRUCTION
Impacts related to water supply, water supply treatment, and conveyance infrastructure were determined to
be less than significant without mitigation.
9
The City’s estimated available water supply is 2,101 acre-feet of water per year. This was calculated by subtracting the
total amount of groundwater the City pumped in the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010 (9,082 acre-feet) from the maximum amount of
groundwater the City can pump annually (11,183 acre-feet).
taha 2012-090 4.13-6

OPERATIONS
Impacts related to water supply, water supply treatment, and conveyance infrastructure were determined to
be less than significant without mitigation.
WASTEWATER
Federal
Federal Water Pollution Control Act. In 1972, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also referred to as
the Clean Water Act (CWA), was amended to provide that the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United
States from any point (such as discharge from an industrial facility) or non-point (surface and farmland water
runoff) source is unlawful unless the discharge is in compliance with a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit.
The CWA was enacted with the primary purpose of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the Nation’s waters. The CWA also directs states to establish water quality standards
for all “waters of the United States” and to review and update such standards on a triennial basis.
Section 319 mandates specific actions for the control of pollution from non-point sources. The United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has delegated responsibility for implementation of portions of
the CWA, including water quality control planning and control programs, such as the NPDES Program, to
the state water quality control boards. Section 303(c)(2)(b) of the CWA requires states to adopt water quality
standards for all surface waters of the United States based on the water body’s designated beneficial use.
Where multiple uses exist, water quality standards must protect the most sensitive use. Water quality
standards are typically numeric, although narrative criteria based upon biomonitoring methods may be
employed where numerical standards cannot be established or where they are needed to supplement
numerical standards. Water quality standards applicable to the proposed project are listed in the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Basin Plan.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The NPDES permit system was established
in the CWA to regulate point source discharges into waters within the United States. Point sources are
discrete conveyances such as pipes or manmade ditches. Individual homes connected to a municipal system
are not required to obtain a permit under the NPDES, however, industrial, municipal, and other facilities
must obtain permits if their discharges go directly to surface waters.
State
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB). The LARWQCB is one of the nine
State Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) that are under the purview of the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The SWRCB sets Statewide policy and, together with the nine State
RWQCBs, implements State and federal laws and regulations that pertain to water quality. The LARWQCB
implements State and federal laws and regulations within its jurisdiction, as well as continuously maintains
its Water Quality Control Plan. The Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD), City, and the
proposed project are expected to comply with all regulations of the LARWQCB.
Regional
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts Wastewater Ordinance. The Wastewater Ordinance was
enacted in 1972 and last amended in 1998. The purpose and intent of the Wastewater Ordinance is to protect
the environment and public health; to provide for the maximum possible beneficial public use of the LACSD
taha 2012-090 4.13-7

wastewater facilities through adequate regulation of sewer construction, sewer use, and industrial wastewater
discharges; to provide for equitable distribution of the LACSD’s costs; and to provide procedures for
complying with requirements placed upon the LACSD by other regulatory agencies. Section 406 of the
Wastewater Ordinance prohibits and restricts all persons discharging wastewater into the LACSD sewerage
system from discharging wastewater that may violate any requirements or permits of the LACSD, including
those of the LARWQCB. The Wastewater Ordinance requires applicants to have sewer connection plans
approved by the LACSD Chief Engineer and all required fees and charges paid prior to obtaining a permit
from the LACSD.
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts Connection Fee Program. The LACSD is authorized by the
California Health and Safety Code Sections 5400 to 5474 to charge a fee for the privilege of connection to
the LACSD’s Sewerage System or increasing the strength or quantity of wastewater attributable to a
particular parcel or operation already connected. The connection fee is a capital facilities fee that is imposed
in an amount sufficient to construct an incremental expansion of the LACSD Sewerage System to
accommodate the proposed project.
Local
City of South Gate General Plan Public Facilities and Service Systems Element. The General Plan
Public Facilities and Service Systems Element provides policy guidance to ensure the provision of public
facilities and services will support existing and new development in the City. The Public Facilities and
Service Systems Element outlines the goals, objectives, and policies related to wastewater treatment and
generation. Specifically, the Public Facilities and Service Systems Element goal related to wastewater is to
have “a wastewater system that is adequate to protect the health and safety of all South Gate residents,
businesses and institutions.” As the proposed project is the construction of a new LACCD satellite campus,
under California Government Code Section 53094, the proposed project is exempt from the City of South
Gate General Plan requirements. However, for informational purposes, applicable objectives and policies of
the City’s General Plan related to wastewater are identified in Table 4.13-5.

WASTEWATER
Objective PF 6.1 Provide high-quality wastewater services to residents and ensure enforcement of wastewater
regulations.
Policy P1 The City will maintain wastewater infrastructure in good conditions.
Policy P2 The approval of new development will be conditional on the availability of adequate long-term
capacity of wastewater treatment, conveyance and disposal sufficient to service the proposed
project.
Policy P3 The City will follow current environmental best practices in the treatment of wastewater.
Policy P4 The City will continue to work with the LACSD to ensure the use of Best Management Practices
in the City.
Objective PF 6.2 Require steps to ensure sufficient wastewater capacity for new development.
Policy P1 Prior to issuance of a wastewater permit for any future development project, the City will require
the project applicants pay applicable connection and/or user fees to the LACSD.
Policy P2 Prior to issuance of a building permit for any future development project, the City will require the
project applicants prepare and submit for review an engineering study to determine the
adequacy of the sewer systems to accommodate the proposed project.
Policy P3 Prior to issuance of a building permit for any future development project. The City will require
the project applicants to provide evidence that the LACSD has sufficient wastewater
transmission and treatment plant capacity to accept sewage flows from buildings for which
building permits are requested.
taha 2012-090 4.13-8

EXISTING SETTING
The City of South Gate and the LACSD are responsible for the provision of wastewater treatment and
conveyance for the City. The City operates the local sewer system where wastewater is conveyed to LACSD
sewer trunk lines that transport wastewater for treatment at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP).
Wastewater Treatment
The JWPCP is the largest wastewater treatment plant operated by the LACSD and serves approximately
3.5 million persons in the greater Los Angeles area. The JWPCP treats and disposes of wastewater from
73 cities, including the City of South Gate. The LACSD operates the JWPCP on 420 acres of land in the
City of Carson. The JWPCP has a design capacity of 400 million gpd and provides both primary and
secondary treatment for approximately 275 million gpd of wastewater. 10 Wastewater treated at JWPCP is
disinfected and sent out into the Pacific Ocean through a network of ocean outfalls that extend two miles off
the coast of the Palos Verdes Peninsula to a depth of 200 feet.
Wastewater Conveyance Infrastructure

The project site is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of District No. 1 of the LACSD. 11 The
LACSD operates 21 sewer trunk lines in the City that convey wastewater to the JWPCP. 12 The Mountain
View-Belle Vernon Relief Extension Trunk Sewer located in Truba Avenue at Missouri Avenue serves the
project site. The Mountain View-Belle Vernon Relief Extension Trunk Sewer is an 18-inch pipe with a
design capacity of 1.9 million gpd and a peak flow of 1.3 million gpd in 2009. 13
The City’s local sewer system is comprised of approximately 116 miles of gravity sewer lines, and 100 sewer
siphons. Approximately 98 miles of the City’s local sewer system is comprised of unreinforced clay sewer
pipelines. These unreinforced clay sewer pipelines were repaired and re-lined in 2002 and 2003.
Approximately 18 miles of the City’s local sewer system is comprised of vitrified clay pipe (VCP). The
City’s VCP sewer pipelines were inspected and repaired in 2008. Deteriorated sewer lines revealed during
preventive maintenance are immediately repaired by either the City Public Works Department or emergency
contractors. 14
Wastewater Generation
As shown in Table 4.13-6, existing uses on the project site and the SGEC generate approximately12,622 gpd
and 98,240 gpd of wastewater, respectively. This accounts for approximately 0.0003 and 0.002 percent of
the JWPCP’s daily treatment capacity, and is approximately 0.07 and 5.17 percent of the Mountain View-
Belle Vernon Relief Extension Trunk Sewer daily conveyance capacity, respectively.
10
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, Joint Water Pollution Control Plant, website:
http://www.lacsd.org/wastewater/ wwfacilities/jwpcp/default.asp accessed on January 28, 2013.
11
Ibid.
12
13
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, Adriana Raza, Customer Service Specialist, Written Correspondence, dated
December 28, 2010.
14
taha 2012-090 4.13-9

TABLE 4.13-6: ESTIMATED WASTEWATER GENERATION OF EXISTING USES AT THE PROJECT

SITE AND THE SOUTH GATE EDUCATION CENTER
Wastewater
Generation Rate Wastewater
Use Quantity Units (gpd/unit) /a/ Generation (gpd) /b/
PROJECT SITE
Estimated Total Wastewater Usage of Existing Uses at Project Site 12,621.95
Estimated Total Wastewater Usage at the SGEC 98,240
/a/ Wastewater generation rates were obtained from the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, Table 1: Loadings for Each Class of Land Use,
which is available at http://www.lacsd.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3531.
/b/ Assumes that Buildings 2, 3, and 4 are vacant and, therefore do not generate wastewater.
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
impact related to wastewater if it would:
• Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board;
• Require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects; and/or
• Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project
that it has adequate capacity to serve the project=s projected demand in addition to the provider=s
existing commitments.
IMPACTS
CONSTRUCTION
Wastewater generated during the construction of the proposed project would be minimal and short-term in
nature. The proposed project would not cause the JWPCP to exceed applicable wastewater treatment
requirements because the JWPCP operates under a NPDES permit and is required to comply with all
LARWQCB wastewater treatment requirements. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less-than-
significant impacts related to wastewater treatment.

As discussed above, wastewater generated during the proposed project construction would be short-term and
is anticipated to be nominal. The nature of the proposed project construction would not be expected to cause
the LACSD or the City to construct new, or expand existing wastewater conveyance infrastructure.
Therefore, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to wastewater
conveyance infrastructure.
taha 2012-090 4.13-10

OPERATIONS
The proposed project would increase the volume of wastewater generated at the project site and treated at the
JWPCP. However, in accordance with LACCD directives, the FEC will be designed and constructed using
the USGBC LEED - New Construction rating system, with the goal of reaching the highest certification level
feasible. As part of achieving a LEED certification, the proposed project would implement water efficiency
design strategies such as low-flow plumbing fixtures (i.e., faucets, toilets, urinals, and shower heads) to
reduce potable water usage and associated wastewater. As shown in Table 4.13-7, the proposed project is
estimated to increase wastewater generation by 180,000 gpd when operating at maximum enrollment
capacity.
TABLE 4.13-7: ESTIMATED INCREASE IN WASTEWATER GENERATION AT THE PROJECT SITE

Wastewater Generation Wastewater
Use Quantity Units Rate (gpd/unit) /a/ Generation (gpd)
Net Increase in Wastewater Generation at the Project Site 180,000
which is available at http://www.lacsd.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3531.
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
Wastewater generated by the proposed project represents about 0.01 percent of the estimated remaining
treatment capacity of the JWPCP. 15 Accordingly, the proposed project is not anticipated to cause the
LACSD to expand existing, or construct new, wastewater treatment facilities to serve the proposed project.
In addition, the proposed project would not cause the JWPCP to exceed applicable wastewater treatment
requirements because the JWPCP operates under a NPDES permit and is required to comply with all
LARWQCB wastewater treatment requirements. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less-than-
significant impacts related to wastewater treatment.
The proposed project would increase the volume of wastewater conveyed by the Mountain View-Belle
Vernon Relief Extension Trunk Sewer and the City’s sewer system, accounting for approximately 30 percent
of the remaining conveyance capacity of the Mountain View-Belle Vernon Relief Extension Trunk Sewer. 16
This increase in wastewater could require the expansion of the Mountain View-Belle Vernon Relief
Extension Trunk Sewer and/or additional connections to other LACSD trunk sewers for the proposed project
to be adequately served. However, since the proposed project would increase the quantity of wastewater
conveyed by the LACSD sewerage system, it would be required to comply with the LACSD Connection Fee
Program. Compliance with the LACSD Connection Fee Program would ensure that any necessary
incremental expansion to LACSD wastewater conveyance infrastructure is made to accommodate the
proposed project. LACSD wastewater conveyance infrastructure would, if necessary, be improved to
accommodate the proposed project, and thus, operation of the proposed project would not be expected to
cause significant impacts to the LACSD wastewater conveyance infrastructure. Prior to the construction of
the proposed project, LACCD shall provide LACSD and SGPWD with design plans for review and approval.
Any additional sewage connections and on-site sewage distribution design features identified by the LACSD
and SGPWD shall be incorporated in the final design plans and to the satisfaction of the LACSD and
SGPWD. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to wastewater
conveyance infrastructure.
15
The estimated remaining capacity of the JWPCP is 121 million gpd. This was calculated by subtracting the average flow of
wastewater treated at the JWPCP (279 million gpd) from the maximum amount of wastewater the JWPCP can treat (400 million gpd).
16
The estimated remaining capacity of the Mountain View-Bell Vernon Relief Extension Trunk Sewer is 600,000 gpd. This
was calculated by subtracting the peak flow of wastewater (1.3 million gpd) from the maximum design capacity (1.9 million gpd).
taha 2012-090 4.13-11

MITIGATION MEASURES
CONSTRUCTION
Impacts related to the wastewater treatment and wastewater conveyance infrastructure would be less than
OPERATIONS
Impacts related to the wastewater treatment would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are
required.
Impacts related to wastewater conveyance infrastructure would be less than significant. No mitigation

CONSTRUCTION
Impacts related to wastewater treatment and wastewater conveyance infrastructure were determined to be
less than significant without mitigation.
OPERATIONS
Impacts related to wastewater treatment and wastewater conveyance infrastructure were determined to be
less than significant without mitigation.
SOLID WASTE
Federal
There are no federal solid waste regulations applicable to the proposed project.
State
California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. Solid waste regulation in California is governed
by the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, which is commonly known as Assembly Bill
(AB) 939. The California Integrated Waste Management Act, codified into the California Public Resources
Code, emphasizes a reduction of waste disposed in State landfills. To achieve a reduction of waste in State
landfills, AB 939 requires all city and county plans to include a waste diversion schedule with the goals to
divert 25 percent of solid waste from landfills by 1995 and divert 50 percent of solid waste from landfills by
taha 2012-090 4.13-12

the year 2000. To achieve these goals, AB 939 emphasizes that cities and counties reduce the production,
recycle, and reuse solid waste.
Local
City of South Gate General Plan Public Facilities and Service Systems Element. The General Plan Public
Facilities and Service Systems Element provides policy guidance to ensure the provision of public facilities and
services will support existing and new development in the City. The Public Facilities and Service Systems
Element outlines the goals, objectives, and polices related to police services, fire services, school and educational
facilities, solid waste and recycling, water service, and wastewater treatment and generation. Specifically, the
Public Facilities and Service Systems Element goal related to solid waste is to have a reduction of solid waste
generated by the City. While California Government Code Section 53094 includes provisions for school
districts to exempt classroom facilities from local zoning regulations, applicable objectives and policies of the
City’s General Plan related to solid waste are identified in Table 4.13-8.
TABLE 4.13-8: APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RELATED TO SOLID
WASTE
Objective PF 4.1 Reduce the volume of solid waste generated in South Gate through recycling and resource
conservation.
Policy P1 The City will meet or exceed the State’s goal of diverting 50 percent of all solid waste from landfills
by 2010 and adjust the percentage of diversion as mandated by the State.
Policy P4 Public and private buildings will be designed or improved with on-site storage facilities for recycled
materials.
Policy P.7 Disposal, salvage and reuse of construction and demolition materials and debris are required for all
construction projects in the City.
EXISTING SETTING
Solid waste disposal and recycling services in the City of South Gate are provided by Waste Management,
Incorporated (WMI). 17 WMI provides collection, transfer, disposal, and recycling services for residential,
commercial, and industrial users, including the existing SGEC. 18
Existing Landfills
Solid waste from the existing SGEC and the project site is collected and transported to the WMI-owned
South Gate Transfer Station where it is consolidated and compacted for disposal. According to the City’s
General Plan Public Facilities and Services Element, Waste Management uses specific landfills for
residential and commercial/industrial wastes. These landfills include Commerce Refuse-To-Energy Facility,
Bradley Landfill, Downtown Diversions, Inc., El Sobrante Landfill, Nu-Way Live Oak Reclamation, Inc.,
Southeast Recovery Resource Facility, City of Long Beach-Energy Recovery Bureau, and Synagro Regional
Composting Facility. The City does not own or operate any landfills or transfer stations with its city limits
and relies on facilities within Los Angeles, Orange, and Riverside Counties. Landfills that are available to
accept solid waste generated from the City are listed in Table 4.13-9.
17
18
South Gate Educational Center, Director of Plant Facilities, Telephone Conversation, January 12, 2011.
taha 2012-090 4.13-13

TABLE 4.13-9: LANDFILLS SERVING THE CITY OF SOUTH GATE

Closure Daily Permitted Capacity Remaining
Facility Name Facility Address Date (tons/day) Permitted Capacity
Calabasas Sanitary Landfill 5300 Lost Hills Rd 9/30/25 3,500 18.1 cubic yards
(Los Angeles) Agoura
Chiquita Canyon Sanitary Landfill 29201 Henry Mayo Dr 11/24/19 6,000 29.3 cubic yards
(Los Angeles) Castaic
El Sobrante Landfill 10910 Dawson Canyon Rd 1/1/45 16,054 145.5 tons
(Riverside) Corona
Sunshine City/ County Landfill 14747 San Fernando Rd 12/31/37 12,100 112.3 cubic yards
(Los Angeles) Sylmar
SOURCE: City of South Gate, General Plan 2035, December 2009; Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, County of Los Angeles
Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan 2008 Annual Report, October 2009; and California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery,
Solid Waste Information System, 2012.
As required by AB 939, the City must divert 25 and 50 percent of its solid waste stream from landfills by
1995 and 2000, respectively. The City of South Gate is a member of the Los Angeles Integrated Waste
Management Authority a regional agency (LARA), which is a consortium of 16 cities in Los Angeles
County. In 2004, the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) approved the formation of
LARA as a regional agency whose mission is to assist members in meeting and exceeding the 50 percent
waste diversion mandates of AB 939. According to the City’s General Plan, The City diverted 47 percent of
its solid waste in 2002 and LARA in which the City is a member, had a diversion rate of 59 percent in 2006.
Solid Waste Generation
As shown in Table 4.13-10, existing uses on the project site and the SGEC generate approximately
7,169 pounds per day (ppd) (3.58 tons per day) and 4,550 ppd (2.28 tons per day) of solid waste. This
accounts for approximately 0.001 and 0.0006 percent of the daily permitted capacity of the landfills listed in
Table 4.13-9, respectively.
TABLE 4.13-10: ESTIMATED SOLID WASTE GENERATION OF EXISTING USES AT THE PROJECT
SITE AND THE SOUTH GATE EDUCATION CENTER
Solid Waste Solid Waste
Generation Rate Generation Usage
Use Quantity Units (ppd/unit) /a/ (ppd) /b/
PROJECT SITE
Estimated Total Solid Waste Generated by of Existing Uses at the Project Site 7,169.27
Estimated Total Solid Waste Generated by the SGEC 4,912
/a/ The solid waste generation rates were obtained from the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery website titled, Estimated Solid
Waste Generation Rates, available at: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastechar/wastegenrates/.
/b/ Assumes that Buildings 2, 3 and 4 are vacant and thus does not generate solid waste.
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
taha 2012-090 4.13-14

impact related to solid waste if it would:
• Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs.
IMPACTS
CONSTRUCTION
The proposed project includes the demolition of the existing Building 4 and its connections to Building 3,
and the construction of a 100,000-square-foot building and a 1,600-space parking structure. Table 4.13-11
lists the estimated amount of solid waste that would be generated during the demolition and construction
phases of the proposed project.
As shown in Table 4.13-11, the total amount of solid waste generated during the demolition and construction
of the proposed project is 17,092 and 1,204 tons, respectively. Taking into account that the proposed project
would comply with AB 939 and divert at least 50 percent of the demolition and construction solid waste
from landfills, the proposed project is estimated to dispose of a maximum of approximately 8,546 and
602 tons of solid waste during the demolition and construction phases of the proposed project, respectively.
TABLE 4.13-11: ESTIMATED SOLID WASTE GENERATION DURING THE DEMOLITION AND
CONSTRUCTION PHASES OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Solid Waste Solid Waste Solid Waste
Building Area Generation Rate Generated Generated
Structure (sq ft) (pounds/sq ft) (pounds) /a/ (tons)
DEMOLITION PHASE
Building 4 220,550 155 34,185,250 17,092
Total Solid Waste Generated During Demolition Phase 34,185,250 17,092
Less 50 Percent of Solid Waste Generated Diverted from Landfills (17,092,625) (8,546)
Net Total Solid Waste Generated During Demolition Phase 17,092,625 8,546
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
Proposed Firestone Education
100,000 3.89 389,000 194
Center
Proposed Parking Structure 519,300 3.89 2,020,077 1,010
Total Solid Waste Generated During Construction Phase 2,409,077 1,204
Less 50 Percent of Solid Waste Diverted from Landfills (1,204,539) (602)
Net Total Solid Waste Generated During Construction Phase 1,204,539 602
Net Total Solid Waste Generated During Demolition and Construction Phase 18,297,164 9,148
/a/ Solid waste generation rates were obtained from the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Characterization of Building-Related
Construction and Demolition Debris in the United States, June 1998.
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
The net amount of solid waste generated during the construction and demolition of the proposed project
would be 9,148 tons assuming that 50 percent of solid waste is diverted from landfills in compliance with
AB 939. The amount of solid waste that would be generated and disposed at area landfills is nominal, and it
is anticipated that the landfills would have sufficient capacity to accommodate the solid waste disposal needs
of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related
to solid waste.
taha 2012-090 4.13-15

OPERATIONS
As shown in Table 4.13-12, operation of the proposed project at maximum student capacity would increase
solid waste generated daily at the project site by 9,000 ppd (4.5 tons per day). The estimated solid waste
amount generated at the project site with operation of the proposed project represents about 0.001 percent of
the daily intake capacity of landfills serving the City. 19 These landfills are anticipated to have sufficient
permitted capacity to receive solid waste. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less-than-
significant impacts related to solid waste.
TABLE 4.13-12: ESTIMATED INCREASE IN SOLID WASTE GENERATION AT THE PROJECT SITE
Solid Waste Generation Solid Waste
Use Quantity Units Rate (ppd/unit) /a/ Generation Usage (ppd)
Increase in Solid Waste Generation at the Project Site 9,000
/a/ The solid waste generation rates were obtained from the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery website titled, Estimated Solid
Waste Generation Rates, which is available at: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastechar/wastegenrates/.
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
MITIGATION MEASURES
CONSTRUCTION
Impacts related to solid waste would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
OPERATIONS
Impacts related to the solid waste would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.

CONSTRUCTION
Impacts related to solid waste were determined to be less than significant without mitigation.
OPERATIONS
Impacts related to solid waste were determined to be less than significant without mitigation.
19
During operation of the proposed project the Calabasas Sanitary Landfill, Chiquita Canyon Sanitary Landfill, El Sobrante
Landfill, and the Sunshine City/County Landfill would be permitted to operate. The daily intake capacity of these landfills is 37,654
tons per day.
taha 2012-090 4.13-16

ENERGY
Federal
Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) of 1978. The PURPA (Public Law 95-617) was passed in
response to the unstable energy climate of the late 1970s. PURPA sought to promote conservation of electric
energy. Additionally, PURPA created a new class of nonutility generators, small power producers, from
which, along with qualified co-generators, utilities are required to buy power.
PURPA was in part intended to augment electric utility generation with more efficiently produced electricity
and to provide equitable ratings to electric consumers. Utility companies are required to buy all electricity
from qualifying facilities (Qfs) at avoided cost. 20 PURPA expanded participation of nonutility generators in
the electricity market, and demonstrated that electricity from nonutility generators could successfully be
integrated with a utility’s own supply. PURPA requires utilities to buy power, usually cogeneration or
renewable energy that is produced by Qfs. Utilities companies want these provisions repealed. Critics argue
that the provisions will decrease competition and impeded development of the renewable energy industry.
The Fuel Use Ace (FUA) of 1978 (repealed in 1987) also helped Qfs become established. Under FUA,
utilities were not allowed to use natural gas to fuel new generating technologies. However, Qfs were by
definition not utilities and were able to take advantage of abundant natural gas and abundant new
technologies such as combined-cycle. The technologies lowered the financial threshold for entrance into the
electricity generation business, as well as shortened the lead time for constructing new plants.
Energy Policy Act of 2005. On August 8, 2005, President George W. Bush signed the National Energy
Policy Act of 2005 into law. This comprehensive energy legislation contains several electricity related
provisions that aim to:
• Help ensure that consumers receive electricity over a dependable, modern infrastructure;
• Remove outdated obstacles to investment in electricity transmission lines;
• Make electric reliability standards mandatory instead of optional; and
• Give federal officials the authority to site new power lines in US Department of Energy designated
national corridors in certain circumstances.
State
The California Energy Commission (CEC) and California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) have
jurisdiction over Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs), such as Southern California Edison (SCE). In addition,
the CEC collects information for SCE.
California Energy Code. Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) comprises the
California Energy Code. The State Energy Code is a part of the State Building Standards found in Title 24 of
the CCR. The State Energy Code standards include provisions applicable to all buildings, residential and
non-residential, which describe requirements for documentation and certificates that the building meets the
standards.
AB 2075, Reducing Dependence on Petroleum. The CEC and California Air Resources Board (CARB) are
directed by law (2000 AB 2075) to develop and adopt recommendations for reducing dependence on
petroleum. A performance based goal is to reduce petroleum demand to 15 percent below 2003 demand.
20
Avoided costs are the incremental savings associated with not having to produce additional units of electricity.
taha 2012-090 4.13-17

Local
City of South Gate General Plan Green City Element. The Green City Element outlines the goals,
objectives, and policies related to green building, and climate change. Specifically, the Green City Element
goal related to energy is to have a robust green building program. While California Government Code
regulations, applicable objectives and policies of the City’s General Plan related to energy are identified in
Table 4.13-13.
TABLE 4.13-13: APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RELATED TO ENERGY
GREEN CITY ELEMENT
Objective PF 4.1 Increase the use of green techniques in new buildings, new building sites and building
remodels and retrofits.
Policy P.2 The City should encourage green building techniques efforts in single-family homes as well
as in new municipal, commercial, mixed-use or multifamily residential projects.
Policy P.3 The City should encourage and create incentives for green building techniques in existing
building retrofits as well as new buildings.
Policy P.5 New buildings should meet or exceed California Title 24 energy efficiency requirements.
Policy P.6 When feasible or required by law, new development should utilize Low Impact Design (LID)
features, including infiltration of stormwater, but LID should not interfere with the City’s goals
of infill development and appropriate densities as defined in the Community Design Element.
Policy P.7 The City should assess all new development’s use of green building techniques as a formal
stage of design review.
City of South Gate Energy Code. The City of South Gate Energy Code is found in Chapter 9.06 of the
SGMC. The City’s Energy Code is an adoption of the 2007 State Energy Code.
EXISTING SETTING
Petroleum
Petroleum supplies for the project site and the existing SGEC are generally purchased by individual users
such as employees and students. There are no petroleum refineries, pipelines, or gasoline stations on the
project site. The nearest petroleum refinery is in the City of El Segundo and is approximately 10 miles
southwest of the project site.
Electricity
SCE is an investor-owned utility that operates within a 50,000-square-mile service area and serves 180 cities,
including the City of Southgate. 21 SCE owns and operates the majority of its generation, transmission, and
distribution infrastructure. SCE distributes power to its customers by utilizing 16 utility connections and
4,990 transmission and distribution circuits. SCE’s power supply is generated from coal, nuclear, and
hydroelectric power. SCE provided its customers approximately 82,197.5 million kilowatt hours (kWh) in
2010. 22
Sources of SCE’s electricity include coal-generated electricity from the Four Corners Generating Station
located in the state of New Mexico; nuclear-generated electricity from the San Onofre and the Palo Verde
21
SCE Company Overview website, http://www.sce.com/AboutSCE/CompanyOverview, accessed November 26, 2012.
22
California Energy Commission. Energy Consumption Data Management System, Electricy Consumption by Entity; 2010
Southern California Edison Company. Website: http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbyutil.aspx accessed November 26, 2012.
taha 2012-090 4.13-18

Nuclear Generating Stations located in San Onofre, California and the state of Arizona, respectively; and
hydroelectric-generated electricity from the SCE-owned Big Creek Hydroelectric facilities (Big Creek)
located in Shaver Lake, California.
As shown in Table 4.13-14, existing uses on the project site and the SGEC use approximately 2,196,219
kwh and 589,050 kwh of electricity per year, respectively. Electricity usage of existing uses on the project
site and the existing SGEC is approximately 0.002 and 0.001 percent of the total amount of electricity used
by SCE customers in 2010, respectively.
TABLE 4.13-14: ESTIMATED ELECTRICITY USAGE OF EXISTING USES AT THE PROJECT SITE AND
EXISTING SOUTH GATE EDUCATION CENTER
Electricity Usage Rate Electricity Usage
Use Quantity Units (kwh/unit/year) /a/ (kwh/year)/b/
PROJECT SITE
Building 1 - Warehouse 234,152 square feet 4.35 1,018,561.20
Estimated Total Electricity Usage of Existing Uses at the Project Site 2,196,219.30
Existing SGEC 51,000 square feet 11.55 589,050
Estimated Total Electricity Usage of Existing uses at the SGEC 589,050
/a/ Electricity usage rates were obtained from the Southern California Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 1993.
/b/ Assumes that Buildings 2, 3 and 4 are vacant and thus does not use electricity.
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
Natural Gas
The City is served by the investor-owned Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), a unit of Sempra
Energy. SoCalGas serves approximately 20.7 million customers through 5.8 million meters. The SoCalGas
service area is 20,000 square miles across Central and Southern California. 23 In 2010, approximately
5403.3 million therms of natural gas, was consumed within the SoCalGas service area. 24 Residential,
industrial, and commercial customers consumed 5146.9 million therms of natural gas. 25
SoCalGas natural gas supplies originate from sedimentary basins located in California, New Mexico, West
Texas, the Rocky Mountains, and Western Canada. SoCalGas uses interstate pipelines to transport natural gas
into its service area. These interstate pipelines are also used with the San Diego Gas and Electric Company
(SDG&E). Interstate pipelines used by SoCalGas and SDG&E have a natural gas upstream capacity of
6,725 million cubic feet per day, or 201,750 million cubic feet per month. 26,27 Locally, SoCalGas distributes
natural gas through an extensive network of approximately 41,500 miles of underground gas mains.
As shown in Table 4.13-15, existing uses on the project site and the SGEC use approximately 1,464,146 feet
and 147,900 cubic feet of natural gas per month, respectively.
23
Southern California Gas Company Profile website, http://www.socalgas.com/aboutus/profile.html, accessed
November 26, 2012.
24
One therm of natural gas is equal to 96.7 cubic feet of natural gas.
25
California Energy Commission. Energy Consumption Data Management System, Gas Consumption by Entity; 2010
Southern California Gas Company. Website: http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbyutil.aspx accessed November 26, 2012.
26
California Gas and Electric Utilities, California Gas Report 2010, 2010.
27
Assuming one month is equivalent to 30 days.
taha 2012-090 4.13-19

TABLE 4.13-15: ESTIMATED NATURAL GAS USAGE OF THE EXISTING USES AT THE PROJECT SITE
AND EXISTING SOUTH GATE EDUCATION CENTER
Natural Gas Usage Rate Natural Gas Usage
Use Quantity Units (cu feet/unit/month) /a/ (cu ft/month)
PROJECT SITE
Estimated Total Natural Gas Usage of Existing Uses at Project Site 1,464,146.20
Existing SGEC 51,000 square feet 2.9 147,900
Estimated Total Natural Gas Usage at the SGEC 147,900
/a/ Natural gas usage rates were obtained from the Southern California Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April, 1993.
/b/ Assumes that Buildings 2, 3 and 4 are vacant and thus does not use natural gas.
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
In accordance with Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would have a significant
impact related to energy if it would:
• Result in the wasteful or inefficient use of energy as a result of project implementation.
IMPACTS
CONSTRUCTION
Petroleum
Petroleum consumption during construction of the proposed project would occur during the use of trucks,
bulldozers, backhoes, graders, and electricity generators, and other petroleum-fueled construction equipment.
Construction of the proposed project would also result in the permanent consumption of finite energy
resources. However, petroleum consumption during construction of the proposed project would be
temporary in nature and would not result in a long-term demand for petroleum. In addition, the CARB
recently passed amendments to Title 13 of the CCR which would require heavy diesel vehicles to restrict
idling to five minutes or less. While this and other similar measures were designed to prevent pollutant
emissions (see Section 4.2 Air Quality for a complete list of measures), the anti-idling measure has the added
benefit of reducing fuel consumption. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant
impact related to the supply of petroleum.
Electricity
Electricity usage during construction of the proposed project would occur during the use of portable
construction trailers, electricity generators, and other electricity-powered construction equipment. However,
electricity usage during construction of the proposed project would be temporary in nature and would not
result in a long-term demand for electricity. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-
significant impact related to electricity.
Natural Gas
Natural gas would not be consumed during construction of the proposed project. However, construction of
the proposed project would involve excavation activities. Underground natural gas pipelines could exist
taha 2012-090 4.13-20

below the project site that could be affected by these excavation activities. Adherence to SoCalGas
construction guidelines would ensure that underground natural gas pipelines are not affected during
construction of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant
impact related to natural gas.
OPERATIONS
Petroleum
project site. The proposed FEC would accommodate up to 9,000 students. Presently, approximately 2,329
students of the 4,912 students attending the SGEC also take class at the ELAC campus to supplement their
coursework. The academic program for the FEC would include all of the components necessary to take
classes exclusively at the FEC. Accordingly, students would no longer need to attend classes at the ELAC
campus to supplement their coursework, and the proposed project would reduce the consumption of
petroleum. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to
petroleum.
Electricity
Operation of the proposed project would result in increased electricity demand at the project site compared to
existing conditions. As shown in Table 4.13-16, the proposed project is estimated to increase electricity
demand by approximately 1,155,000 million kwh per year when operating at maximum enrollment capacity.
The proposed project’s estimated net annual electricity usage represents approximately 0.0002 percent of the
electricity usage of SCE customers in 2010.
TABLE 4.13-16: ESTIMATED INCREASE IN ELECTRICITY USAGE AT THE PROJECT SITE

Electricity Usage Rate Electricity Usage
Use Quantity Units (kwh/unit/year) /a/ (kwh/year)
Proposed Firestone Education Center 100,000 square feet 11.55 1,155,000
Net Increase of Electricity Usage at the Project Site 1,155,000
/a/ Electricity usage rates were obtained from the Southern California Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 1993.
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
In accordance with LACCD directives, the FEC building will be designed and constructed using the USGBC
LEED - New Construction rating system, with the goal of reaching the highest certification level feasible.
As part of achieving LEED certification, the proposed project would implement energy design strategies
such as high performance insulation and glazing, and optimized shading, and the use of green power. In
addition, compliance with City and State energy codes, would increase the energy efficiency of the proposed
project and ensure that the proposed project would not result in the wasteful or inefficient use of energy.
Accordingly, the actual demand for electricity generated by the proposed project is likely far less than
estimated. Regardless, the amount of electricity demanded by the proposed project is not anticipated to cause
SCE to expand existing, or construct new, electricity generating facilities to accommodate the proposed
project. To ensure that electricity demand does not impact SCE, the LACCD would submit project design
plans to SCE to determine if existing electrical connections and off-site distribution facilities would require
improvement as a result of the proposed project. If improvements to existing electrical connections and off-
site distribution facilities are found to be necessary LACCD would adhere to SCE guidelines. Therefore, the
proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to electricity.
taha 2012-090 4.13-21

Natural Gas
Operation of the proposed project would result in increased natural gas demand at the project site compared
to existing conditions. As shown in Table 4.13-17, operation of the proposed project at maximum student
capacity is estimated to increase monthly natural gas demand by approximately 290,000 cubic feet per year.
The proposed project’s estimated natural gas usage represents approximately 0.003 percent of the interstate
pipeline capacity.
TABLE 4.13-17: ESTIMATED INCREASE IN NATURAL GAS USAGE AT THE PROJECT SITE
Natural Gas
Usage Rate Natural Gas Usage
Use Quantity Units (cu feet/unit/month) /a/ (cu ft/month)
Proposed Firestone Education Center 100,000 square feet 2.9 290,000
Net Increase in Natural Gas Usage at the Project Site 290,000
/a/ Natural gas usage rates were obtained from the Southern California Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 1993.
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
The proposed project would be constructed to achieve the highest and most feasible LEED certification. As
part of achieving LEED certification, the proposed project would include high performance glazing,
insulation, and optimized shading. In addition, compliance with City and State energy codes, as well as the
usage of high performance glazing, insulation and optimized shading, would increase the energy efficiency
of the proposed project and ensure that the proposed project would not result in the wasteful or inefficient
use of energy. Accordingly, the actual demand for electricity generated by the proposed project is likely far
less than estimated. Regardless, the amount of natural gas used would not exceed the interstate pipeline
capacity. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to natural gas.
MITIGATION MEASURES
CONSTRUCTION
Impacts related to petroleum, electricity, and natural gas would be less than significant. No mitigation
OPERATIONS
Impacts related to petroleum, electricity, and natural gas would be less than significant. No mitigation

CONSTRUCTION
Impacts related to petroleum, electricity, and natural gas were determined to be less than significant without
mitigation.
OPERATIONS
Impacts related to petroleum, electricity, and natural gas were determined to be less than significant without
mitigation.
taha 2012-090 4.13-22

2013 Firestone Education Center Master Pan 4.14 Cumulative Impacts
4.14 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

CEQA defines cumulative impacts as two or more individual actions that when considered together
compound environmental impacts. Cumulative impacts are the changes in the environment that result from
the incremental impact of the proposed project and other nearby projects. For example, traffic impacts of
two nearby projects may be insignificant when analyzed separately, but could have a significant impact when
analyzed together. Cumulative impact analysis provides a reasonable forecast of future environmental
conditions and gauges the effects of a series of projects. Table 4.14-1 lists current planned and pending
projects in the City of South Gate and surrounding communities. These projects are considered in the
cumulative analysis presented below and are shown in Figure 4.14-1.
TABLE 4.14-1: RELATED PROJECTS

Key to
Figure
4.14-1 Project Name Address/Location Land Use Size
CITY OF SOUTH GATE
1 -- 2525 Firestone Boulevard Warehouse 722,473 GSF
2 -- 2340 Firestone Boulevard Light Industrial 51,020 GSF
3 South Gate Shopping Center Northeast corner of Firestone Boulevard Shopping Center 264,750 GSF
and Alameda Street
4 LAUSD - South Region 277 Willow Place Elementary School 650 Students
Elementary School #9
5 LAUSD - South Region High 5225 Tweedy Boulevard High School 1,431 Students
School #9 Adult Evening 450 Students
School
6 Southeast Los Angeles 4101 Firestone Boulevard Courthouse 9 Courtrooms
Courthouse Project 99,518 GSF
7 South Gate Gateway Project Northwest corner of Firestone Movie Theater 2,200 Seats
Boulevard and Atlantic Avenue Retail 550,000 GSF
8 Atlantic Park Plaza Project 9923 Atlantic Boulevard Retail 50,000 GSF
9 Calden Court Apartment 2405 Southern Avenue Apartments 225 Units
10 Azteca Market and Deli 9020 Long Beach Boulevard Supermarket 11,230 GSF
11 Firestone Viallage 3125 Firestone Boulevard Condominiums 47 Units
15,000 GSF
CITY OF LYNWOOD
12 Habitat for Humanity 4237 Imperial Highway Affordable Housing 10 Units
13 Park Place Project Corner of Atlantic Avenue and Carlin Apartment 99 Units
Avenue
14 Northgate Markets East side of Long Beach Boulevard Commercial 60,820 GSF
between Josephine Street and the I-105
Freeway
15 -- Southwest Corner of Long Beach Supermarket 10,550 GSF
Boulevard and Pluma Street
16 -- 11833 Atlantic Avenue Retail 7,843 GSF
17 -- 2600 Imperial Highway Distribution Center 200,007 GSF
CITY OF DOWNEY
Corner of Downey Avenue and Restaurant 25,000 GSF
18 Downey Gateway
Firestone Boulevard
19 Tierra Luna Specific Plan Bounded by Lakewood Boulevard, Condominium 1,500 Units
Bellflower Boulevard, & Congressman Hotel 450 Rooms
Steve Horn Way General Office 675,000 GSF
Shopping Center 1,200,000 GSF
Remove Existing
Downey Studios
20 -- Northeast corner of Gallatin Road and Condominium 46 Units
Lakewood Boulevard
taha 2012-090 4.14-1

TABLE 4.14-1: RELATED PROJECTS

Key to
Figure
4.14-1 Project Name Address/Location Land Use Size
21 LAUSD - South Region 3232 Saturn Avenue Elementary School 950 Students
Elementary School #5
22 LAUSD - South Region High 6361 Cottage Street High School 1,620 Students
School #7
CITY OF LOS ANGELES
Movie Theater with
Watts Cinema & Education 1,040 Seats
23 10341 Graham Avenue Matinee
Center ZA-2010-2684
Education Center 12,000 GSF
24 HRB08-005 11300 Monitor Avenue High School 500 Students
Jordan Downs Condominium 1800 units
25 Redevelopment Master Plan 9800 Grape Street Community Multi-
HRB10-003 70,000 GSF
Use
Animo Watts #2 at Flourney
26 1630 E. 111th Street High School 125 Students
Elementary School
LAUSD - South Region High Adult Evening
27 8880 S. San Pedro Street 450 Students
School #12 School
Sports Field 3 fields
Alliance Heritage Middle
28 9719 S. Main Street Middle School 400 Students
School
Senior Housing 49 Units
29 9402 S. Broadway
Retail 25,000 GSF
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Banquet Hall 7,722 GSF
30 R2004-001142 2121 Firestone Boulevard Existing
(7,722) GSF
Retail/Commercial
Hospital 784,910 GSF
Commercial/Retail 80,000 GSF
Martin Luther King Jr.
31 Medical Center Campus 12021 Wilmington Avenue Single-Family
100 Units
Redevelopment Residential
Medical Office 300,000 GSF
General Office 150,000 GSF
32 R2006-00769 1717 E. 61st Street Apartment 30 Units
Auto Body Parts
33 R2008-00065 9201 S Alameda Street 318 GSF
Sale
34 R2008-00739 1560 E. Florence Avenue Pawn Shop 5,880 GSF
35 R2008-01396 7312 Pacific Boulevard Tatoo Parlour 5,376 GSF
36 R2008-01423 1226 Nadeau Street Used Auto Sales 5,000 GSF
37 R2008-01463 2241 E 89th Street Recycling Center 41,857 GSF
38 R2009-00744 2808 E Florence Avenue Used Auto Sales 6,340 GSF
Outdoor Storage
39 R2009-01038 9301 Laurel Street 30,375 GSF
Yard
40 R2009-01441 7641 Santa Fe Street Used Auto Sales 3,306 GSF
41 R20011-01147 8122 Maie Avenue Light Manufacturing 8.3 acres
42 R2012-00157 1208 E 59th Street Apartment 10 Units
43 R2012-00881 1842 E. 58th Place Dance Hall 15,305 GSF
44 R2012-00881 6719 Compton Avenue Used Auto Sales 3,500 GSF
45 R2012-01264 2100 Firestone Boulevard Used Auto Sales 11,804 GSF
46 R2012-01925 9113 Alameda Street Light Industrial 33,395 GSF
SOURCE: Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers Traffic Impact Study 2013 Firestone Educational Center Master Plan, November 21, 2013.
taha 2012-090 4.14-2

VE 101
NIC
AY
EB 4TH CESAR E CHAVEZ AVE
W
LVD ST
AD
ST
OL
O
7TH ST
BR
YM
NA
HOOVER ST
PI
RE
VERMONT AVE C 60
D
BL
LO
10
BLV
AV
16 VD
TH
710
D
ST 8TH
AN
IC
ST
ANT
GR
JEF BEVE
ATL
RLY B
FE OLYMPIC BLVD WHIT LVD
RS 23RD ST TIER
ON BLVD
BLV
D OLYMPI
C BLVD
MARTIN LUTHER KING JR BLVD WAS

H ING
TON
COMPTON AVE
SOTO ST
BLV 5
E
VERNON AVE D
AV
SANTA FE AVE
PACIFIC BLVD
OD
VERNON
WO
LOS ANGELES COMMERCE
EN
CENTRAL AVE
E
AVALON BLVD
GR
MAYWOOD
S FIGUEROA ST
S MAIN ST
SLAUSON AVE
42 43
VE
32
!
DA
HUNTINGTON
N AVE
22
IEL
44 PARK
GAGE AVE
RF
EASTER
FLORENCE AVE 46
GA
34 38 BELL
110 36 FLORENCE- 40 35WALNUT !
21 FLORENCE
AVE
ATLA
FIRESTONE PARK
BELL GARDENS
41 45
NTIC
MANCHESTER AVE
!
20 30 CUDAHY
!! !
AVE
39373 1 11
VD
!
BL
FIRESTONE
20
! 33
2 4 10 ! ! !
6
BLVD
NT
2927 7
OU
VD
!
AM
25 9 SOUTH GATE
BL
CENTURY BLVD28
OD
103RD ST TWEEDY
PA
BLVD
VERMONT AVE
UNINCORPORATED
ALAM
WO
LOS ANGELES
!
23 8 !5 !
18
KE
COUNTY
EDA S
ABBOTT RD
LA
!
26 24
!
15
!
DOWNEY
T
12
17
105
31 LYNWOOD !
19
WILLOWBROOK
14 605
EL SEGUNDO BLVD IMPERIAL HWY
LONG BEACH BLV
!
16
13
105
RANCHO ROSECRANS AVE EAST

DOMINGUEZ COMPTON
PARAMOUNT
PARAMOUNT BLVD
WILMINGTON AVE
GARFIELD AVE
COMPTON BLVD
O ST
COMPTON BELLFLOWER
EDR
ALONDRA BLVD
BELLFLOWER BLVD
P
LAKEWOOD BLVD
SAN
91
ARTESIA FWY
ARTESIA BLVD
VICTORIA ST 710
ST
TH
190
LEGEND:
Project Site City of South Gate # Related Projects
1. Warehouse 13. Park Place Project 25. Jordan Downs Redevelopment 37. Recycling Center
2. Light Industrial 14. Northgate Markets Master Plan 38. Used Auto Sales
3. South Gate Shopping Center 26. Amino Watts #2 at Flourney ES 39. Outdoor Storage Yard
15. Supermarket
27. South Region High School #12 40. Used Auto Sales
4. South Region Elementary School #9 16. Retail
17. Distribution Center 28. Alice Heritage Middle School 41. Light Manufacturing
18. Downey Gateway 29. Senior Housing and Retail 42. Apartment
6. Southeast Los Angeles Courthouse
30. Banquet Hall and Existing Retail 43. Dance Hall
7. South Gate Gateway 19. Tierra Luna Specific Plan
31. Martin Luther King, Jr. Medical 44. Used Auto Sales
8. Atlantic Park Plaza 20. Condominium
Center Campus Redevelopment 45. Used Auto Sales
9. Calden Court Apartments 32. Apartment 46. Light Industrial
21. South Region Elementary School #5 N
10. Aztec Market and Deli 33. Auto Body Parts Sales
23. Watts Cinema and Education 34. Pawn Shop Approx.
11. Firestone Village Scale
Center
12. Habitat for Humanity 35. Tattoo Parlor
24. Public High School
36. Used Auto Sales 0 1 2
SOURCE: Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers and TAHA, 2013. miles
taha 2012-090
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report RELATED PROJECTS
AESTHETICS
Implementation of the proposed project in combination with the related projects would result in the infill of a
densely developed urban area. While many of the related projects, including the proposed project, would be
visible from public and private properties, the vast majority of the related projects are too distant from each
other to have a combined aesthetic effect. Likewise, shadow impacts associated with individual buildings are
isolated in nature and do not contribute to additive effects. The proposed project would result in less-than-
significant impacts related to aesthetics. Review and approval of each of the related project’s plans by their
respective jurisdictions would ensure that the related projects do not degrade the character of the surrounding
area and are designed in accordance with adopted plans and regulations related to aesthetics. Therefore,
impacts related to aesthetics would not be cumulatively considerable.
AIR QUALITY
Cumulative impacts for criteria air pollutants are first determined by assessing if the proposed project would
result in a significant project-level impact related to regional air quality based on SCAQMD significance
thresholds. If the project exceeds SCAQMD thresholds, is part of an ongoing regulatory program, or is
contemplated in a Program EIR, and the related projects are located within approximately one mile of the
project site, the additive effects of related projects are considered. As the proposed project is not part of an
ongoing regulatory program, project-specific air quality impacts were used to determine the potential
cumulative impacts to regional air quality. If a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its
emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the
region’s existing air quality conditions. As discussed in Section 4.2 Air Quality, the proposed project would
not result in significant air quality impacts during construction activity or after buildout and occupation. As
a result, the proposed project would not affect SCAQMD's forecasts of attainment of ambient air quality
standards in accordance with the requirements of the federal and State Clean Air Acts. Therefore, impacts
related to air quality would not be cumulatively considerable.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impacts associated with historic resources are isolated in nature and typically do not contribute to additive
effects on a particular geographic location. The geographic context of this cumulative historic resource
analysis is the California Register-eligible South Gate Historic District. The South Gate Historic District is
comprised of the project site and the adjacent HON site. The South Gate Shopping Center (Related Project
No. 3) would be located on the HON site. Implementation of this shopping center would likely result in the
removal of historical resources associated with the South Gate Historic District. As the proposed project
would also result in the removal of a historical resource, implementation of the proposed project, in
combination with the South Gate Shopping Center project, would compound impacts to the South Gate
Historic District. Therefore, impacts related to historical resources would be cumulatively considerable and
a significant cumulative impact would occur.
Potential impacts to cultural resources from other related projects would be assessed on a case-by-case basis,
and, if necessary, would be required to implement appropriate mitigation measures. Impacts related to
archeological, paleontological, and human remains resulting from the proposed project have been mitigated
to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, impacts related to archeological, paleontological resources, and
human remains would not be cumulatively considerable.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS

Geotechnical hazards are site-specific, and there is little cumulative geological relationship between the
proposed project and the related projects. Nonetheless, cumulative development would increase the
population in the area, thus increasing the risk of exposure to seismically-induced hazards. However, similar
to the proposed project, the related projects would be subject to local, State, and federal regulations,
including California Building Code requirements. Therefore, with adherence to such regulations, impacts
related to geology and soils would not be cumulatively considerable.
taha 2012-090 4.14-4

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

The CEQA Guidelines emphasize that the effects of GHG emissions are cumulative, and should be analyzed
in the context of CEQA’s existing cumulative impacts analysis. Consequently, the project-level analysis,
provided in Section 4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, also represents the cumulative GHG analysis. The GHG
analysis determined that the proposed project would not result in significant impacts and would be consistent
with applicable GHG plans, policies, and regulations. Therefore, impacts related to greenhouse gas
emissions would not be cumulatively considerable.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Each of the related projects would be required to evaluate their respective public health and safety impact on
a project-by-project basis. The geographic area affected by potential cumulative hazards and hazardous
materials impacts would depend on the migration characteristics of the hazardous materials as they are
released into the soil, air, or groundwater. Similar to the proposed project, which was determined to have
less-than-significant impacts with the implementation of identified mitigation measures, the related projects
would also be required to mitigate any potential hazards and hazardous materials concerns prior to
implementation. Likewise, the related projects are expected to be constructed and operated in accordance
with applicable hazardous materials laws, statutes, and regulations. Therefore, impacts related to hazards
and hazardous materials would not be cumulatively considerable.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Each of the related projects would be required to evaluate their respective hydrology and water quality
impact on a project-by-project basis. Compliance with State and federal requirements, including
development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for project construction, and adherence to local
regulations for construction and operation of new developments would be required for the related projects
and the proposed project. This compliance would mitigate any potential cumulative impacts by requiring on-
site detention, treatment, or other best management practices for controlling urban runoff. Therefore,
impacts related to hydrology and water quality would not be cumulatively considerable.
LAND USE AND PLANNING

The cumulative growth in housing and development associated with the related projects would alter the
composition of existing land uses in the area. Based on information available regarding the related projects,
it is reasonable to assume that development of the related projects would implement and support local and
regional planning goals and policies. It is expected that the related projects would be compatible with the
zoning and land use designations for each of the related project sites and their surrounding properties.
However, potential land use and planning impacts would be evaluated on a project-by-project basis to ensure
the related projects and any change in land uses would be consistent with the surrounding land uses and
applicable goals and policies for the area. The proposed project is consistent with the existing zoning and
General Plan designation of the project site and would not conflict with applicable land use plans and
policies. Therefore, impacts related to land use and planning would not be cumulatively considerable.
NOISE AND VIBRATION

Construction. Cumulative construction noise impacts are a localized impact. Construction activities for the
proposed project may overlap with the construction of nearby related projects (i.e., the South Gate Shopping
Center development on the northeast corner of Firestone Boulevard and Alameda Street). Cumulative
construction noise levels were estimated at sensitive receptors using the same methodology presented in
Section 4.9 Noise and Vibration. As shown in Table 4.14-2, cumulative construction noise levels would
exceed the 5-dBA significance threshold at the South Gate Educational Center and residential land uses
north, east, and south of the project site. Therefore, without mitigation, impacts related to construction noise
would be cumulatively considerable.
taha 2012-090 4.14-5

TABLE 4.14-2: CUMULATIVE CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS - UNMITIGATED

Maximum Combined Existing Ambient New Combined
Construction Noise Noise Level (dBA, Ambient Noise Level
Sensitive Receptor Level (dBA) /a/ Leq) /b/ (dBA, Leq) /c/ Increase /d/
Single- and Multi-Family Residences to 83.1 64.9 83.2 18.3
the North of the Project Site
Single-Family Residences to the East 72.2 56.6 72.3 15.7
of the Project Site
Redeemer Lutheran Church and 60.8 57.6 62.5 4.9
School
Single-Family Residences to the South 67.5 57.3 67.9 10.6
of the Project Site
Mirage Inn 72.5 69.5 74.3 4.8
Sunrise Inn 72.5 69.5 74.3 4.8
South Gate Educational Center 72.6 68.1 73.9 5.8
Plaza Motel 72.5 69.5 74.3 4.8
Liberty Boulevard Elementary School 60.7 57.6 62.4 4.8
/a/ Construction noise source's sound level at receptor location, with distance and building adjustment.
/b/ Pre-construction activity ambient sound level at receptor location.
/c/ New sound level at receptor location during the construction period, including noise from construction activity.
/d/ An incremental noise level increase of 5 dBA or more would result in a significant impact.
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures N1 through N3, as described in Section 4.9 Noise and Vibration
would assist in the reduction of construction noise levels. Table 4.14-3 presents the mitigated noise levels at
the impacted noise-sensitive land uses. As shown in the table below, construction activity would still exceed
the 5-dBA significance threshold at the SGEC and the residential land uses north and east of the project site.
Therefore, impacts related to construction noise would be cumulatively considerable and a significant
cumulative impact would occur.
TABLE 4.14-3: CUMULATIVE CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS - MITIGATED

Maximum Combined Existing Ambient New Combined
Construction Noise Noise Level (dBA, Ambient Noise Level
Sensitive Receptor Level (dBA) /a/ Leq) /b/ (dBA, Leq) /c/ Increase /d/
Single- and Multi-Family Residences to 80.3 64.9 80.4 15.5
the North of the Project Site
Single-Family Residences to the East 69.5 56.6 69.7 13.1
of the Project Site
Single-Family Residences to the South 60.7 57.6 62.4 4.8
of the Project Site
South Gate Educational Center 65.3 57.3 65.9 8.6
/a/ Construction noise source's sound level at receptor location, with distance and building adjustment.
/b/ Pre-construction activity ambient sound level at receptor location.
/c/ New sound level at receptor location during the construction period, including noise from construction activity.
/d/ An incremental noise level increase of 5 dBA or more would result in a significant impact.
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
Operations. When calculating future traffic impacts, the traffic consultant took all related projects into
consideration. Thus, the future traffic results without and with the proposed project already account for the
cumulative impacts of the proposed project in combination with the related projects. Since noise impacts are
generated directly from the traffic analysis results, future with project noise impacts described in Section 4.9
Noise and Vibration reflect cumulative impacts, and the proposed project would not result in significant
operational noise impacts. Therefore, impacts related to operational noise would not be cumulatively
considerable.
taha 2012-090 4.14-6

Vibration
Construction. Although there could be concurrent construction activities occurring at the related project
sites and at the proposed project site, the vibration levels from each piece of construction equipment would
not be additive due to the rapid rate that vibration levels attenuate. Furthermore, the likelihood of multiple
pieces of equipment impacting the ground surface with the same vibration characteristics and operating
simultaneously is low. Therefore, impacts related to construction vibration would not be cumulatively
considerable.
Operations. The predominant vibration source near the project site is heavy trucks traveling on the local
roadways. Neither the proposed project nor related projects would substantially increase heavy-duty vehicle
traffic near the project site and would not cause a substantial increase in heavy-duty trucks on local
roadways. Therefore, impacts related to operational vibration would not be cumulatively considerable.
POPULATION, HOUSING, AND EMPLOYMENT
There are 43 related projects in the vicinity of the project site. Of these 46 related projects, 11 include the
construction of housing units. Two of the residential related projects are located in the City of South Gate.
Cumulative development would result in a total of 6,916 housing units, which could generate approximately
10,112 new residents (Table 4.14-4). The proposed project does not include a housing component.
Therefore, impacts related to population and housing growth would not be cumulatively considerable.
TABLE 4.14-4: POPULATION, HOUSING, AND EMPLOYMENT GENERATION OF THE RELATED

PROJECTS
Population Housing Employment
Description Land Use Size Factor Increase Increase Increase
CITY OF SOUTH GATE
1,000 s.f./
2340 Firestone Boulevard Light Industrial 51,020 GSF -- -- 51
employee
South Gate Shopping 500 s.f./
Shopping Center 264,750 GSF -- -- 530
Center employee
LAUSD South Region 0.13 employee/
Elementary School 650 students -- -- 85
Elementary School #9 student
0.13 employee/
High School 1,431 students -- -- 186
LAUSD South Region student
High School #9 0.13 employee/
Adult Evening School 450 students -- -- 59
student
Southeast Los Angeles 10 employees/
Courthouse 9 Courtrooms -- -- 90
Courthouse Project courtroom
1,000 s.f./
2525 Firestone Boulevard Warehouse 722,473 GSF 722
employee
South Gate Gateway 500 s.f./
Movie Theater Retail 550,000 GSF 1100
Project employee
Atlantic Park Plaza 500 s.f./
Retail 50,000 GSF 100
Project employee
3.29 persons/
Calden Court Apartments Apartments 225 units -- 225 --
households
500 s.f./
Aztec Market and Deli Commercial 11,230 GSF -- -- 23
employee
3.29 persons/
Condominium 47 units households
Firestone Village 155 47 30
Retail 15,000 GSF 500 s.f./
employee
taha 2012-090 4.14-7


PROJECTS
CITY OF LYNWOOD
4.43 persons/
Habitat for Humanity Affordable Housing 10 units 44 10 --
households
4.43 persons/
Park Place Project Apartment 99 units 439 99 --
households
500 s.f./
Northgate Markets Commercial 60,820 GSF -- -- 122
employee
Supermarket SW Corner
500 s.f./
of Long Beach Blvd & Commercial 10,550 GSF -- -- 21
employee
Pluma St
500 s.f./
11833 Atlantic Avenue Retail 7,843 GSF 16
employee
1,000 s.f./
2600 Imperial Highway Distribution Center 200,007 GSF 200
employee
CITY OF DOWNEY
25,000 GSF 500 s.f./ 50
Downey Gateway Restaurant employee -- --
3.29 persons/
Condominium 1,500 units 4,935 1,500 --
households
0.4 employee/
Hotel 450 Rooms -- -- 180
room
Tierra Luna Specific Plan
250 s.f./
General Office 675,000 GSF -- -- 2,700
employee
1,200,000 500 s.f./
Shopping Center -- -- 2,400
GSF employee
Northeast corner of
3.29 persons/
Gallatin Road and Condominium 46 units 151 46
households
Lakewood Boulevard
LAUSD South Region 0.13 employee/
Elementary School 950 students -- -- 124
Elementary School #5 student
LAUSD South Region 0.13 employee
High School #7 student
CITY OF LOS ANGELES
0.027
Movie Theater 1,040 seats -- -- 28
Watts Cinema & employee/ seat
Education Center 250 s.f./
Education Center 12,000 GSF -- -- 48
employee
0.13 employee/
11300 Monitor Avenue High School 500 students -- -- 65
student
2.85 persons/
Jordan Downs Condominium 1,800 units 3,762 1,800 --
households
Redevelopment Master
500 s.f./
Plan Community Multi-Use 70,000 GSF -- -- 140
employee
Animo Watts #2 at
0.13 employee/
Flourney Elementary High School 125 students -- -- 16
student
School
0.13 employee/
LAUSD South Region student
High School #12 0.13 employee/
Adult Evening School 450 students -- -- 59
student
taha 2012-090 4.14-8


PROJECTS
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
1,000 s.f./
2121 Firestone Blvd Banquet Hall 7,722 GSF -- -- 8
employee
500 s.f./
Hospital 784,910 GSF -- -- 1,570
employee
Commercial/ 500 s.f./
80,000 GSF -- -- 160
Retail employee
Martin Luther King Jr.
Single-Family 3.02 persons/
Medical Center Campus 100 units 302 100 --
Residential households
Redevelopment
250 s.f./
Medical Office 300,000 GSF -- -- 1,200
employee
250 s.f./
General Office 150,000 GSF -- -- 600
employee
Alliance Heritage Middle 0.13 employee/
Middle School 400 students 59
School student
3.02 persons/
Senior Housing 49 units
households
9402 S. Broadway 147 49 50
500 s.f./
Retail 25,000 GSF
employee
4.43 persons/
R2006-00769 Apartment 30 units 133 30
households
1,000 s.f./
R2008-00065 Auto Body Parts Sale 318 GSF 1
employee
500 s.f./
R2008-00739 Pawn Shop 5,880 GSF 12
employee
500 s.f./
R2008-01396 Tattoo Parlor 5,376 GSF 11
employee
500 s.f./
R2008-01423 Used Auto Sales 5,000 GSF 10
employee
1,000 s.f./
R2008-01463 Recycling Center 41,857 GSF 41
employee
500 s.f./
employee
Outdoor Storage 500 s.f./
R2009-01038 30,375 GSF 61
Yard employee
500 s.f./
employee
1,000 s.f./
R20011-01147 Light Manufacturing 8.3 acres 361
employee
4.43 persons/
R2012-00157 Apartment 10 units 44 10
households
1,000 s.f./
R2012-00881 Dance Hall 15,305 GSF 15
employee
500 s.f./
employee
500 s.f./
employee
1,000 s.f./
R2012-01925 Light Industrial 33,395 GSF 33
employee
TOTALS 10,112 6,916 13,862
SOURCE: Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers Traffic Impact Study 2013 Firestone Education Center Master Plan, November 21, 2013.
Of the 46 related projects, 37 would generate employment. These three related projects would create
approximately 13,862 new jobs. Including the estimated 105 net new jobs created by the proposed project,
the cumulative job generation would be approximately 13,967 jobs. This cumulative employment growth
would comprise approximately 4.7 percent of the employment growth for the County of Los Angeles
(295,038 jobs) projected by SCAG. The cumulative job growth would not exceed the County of Los
Angeles SCAG employment growth. Therefore, impacts related to employment growth would not be
cumulatively considerable.
taha 2012-090 4.14-9

PUBLIC SERVICES
Fire Protection Services

The 46 related projects are all infill developments in a densely developed urban area that currently receives
fire protection services. The project site is served by the Los Angeles County Fire Department; however,
related projects located outside of the City of South Gate may be served by the City of Los Angeles Fire
Department. Regardless, although cumulative development would result in an increase in building area,
cumulative development would not expand the service area of the fire protection service provider.
Additionally, all related projects would be required to comply with the latest fire codes. Future impacts to
fire protection services would be evaluated on a project-by-project basis to address potentially significant
impacts to fire protection services. As disclosed in Section 4.11 Public Services, the proposed project would
result in a less-than-significant impact related to fire protection services. Accordingly, the proposed project
in combination with the related projects would not reduce average emergency responses time to below
acceptable levels. Therefore, impacts related fire protection services would not be cumulatively
considerable.
Police Protection Services

The 46 related projects are all infill developments in a densely developed urban area that currently receives
police protection services. Currently, the project site is served by the South Gate Police Department
(SGPD); however, with implementation of the proposed project, the FEC would be served by the Los
Angeles Sheriff’s Department (LASD) which provides security protection to all LACCD campuses. Related
projects located in the City of South Gate would be served by the SGPD. Related projects located outside of
the City of South Gate receive police protection services from various providers. As the proposed project
would be served by the LASD under contract with the LACCD, the proposed project would not contribute to
impacts to police protection service providers serving the related projects. Therefore, impacts related to
police protection services would not be cumulatively considerable.
Public Schools
Related projects that include a residential component would generate a school-aged population, increase
demand for schools, and potentially result in impacts to local schools. These projects would be required to
pay school impact fees under SB 50, mitigating potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. The
proposed project is the construction and operation of a community college satellite campus and does not
include a residential component. Therefore, impacts related to public schools would not be cumulatively
considerable.
Parks and Other Public Services

Parks and Recreation. Cumulative development would result in an increased demand for parks and
recreation facilities. As described in Section 4.11 Public Services, the City of South Gate does not meet its
open space-to-residents ratio goal and is, therefore, deficient in parkland. Any increase in residents in the
City would exacerbate the existing deficiency. Two of the related projects located in the City of South Gate
include a housing component that would increase the resident population in the City, increasing demand and
potentially resulting in a cumulatively considerable impact. As the proposed project would include an open
space component that would serve students and faculty, demand for public parks in the City created by the
proposed project would be offset. Therefore, impacts related to parks would not be cumulatively
considerable.
Public Libraries. The City of South Gate is served by the Los Angeles Public Library (LACPL) system. As
a number of related projects include a residential component, demand for public library services provided by
the LACPL could increase, potentially resulting in a cumulatively considerable impact. Because the
proposed project does not include a residential component and includes the provision of a library that would
serve students and faculty, demand for public libraries created by the proposed project would not be
significant. Therefore, impacts related public libraries would not be cumulatively considerable.
taha 2012-090 4.14-10
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
The traffic analysis conducted for the proposed project includes regional growth and the 46 related projects
under future year conditions. Consequently, the project-level analysis, provided in Section 4.12
Transportation and Traffic, also represents the cumulative traffic analysis. The proposed project would
result in significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts at five study intersections in the City of South Gate
and the County of Los Angeles. Therefore, impacts related to traffic and transportation would be
cumulatively considerable and a significant cumulative impact would occur.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Water
Cumulative impacts related to wastewater treatment and conveyance infrastructure would be evaluated
within the geographic context of the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of South Gate. The City of South
Gate provides water service to residents, businesses, and other water users in most of the City. Of the
46 related projects, 11 are within the City of South Gate. The total estimated water usage of these related
projects and the proposed project is listed in Table 4.14-5. The total water usage of the proposed project and
the eight related projects is estimated to be approximately 534,531 gpd, accounting for less than one percent
of the City’s remaining water supply.1 Accordingly, water usage of the proposed projects in combination
with the related projects would not exceed available City water supplies. Therefore, impacts related to water
supply would not be cumulatively considerable.
TABLE 4.14-5: ESTIMATED WATER USAGE OF THE RELATED PROJECTS AND PROPOSED
PROJECT
Project Quantity Units (gpd/unit) /a,b/ (gpd)
Proposed Project 9,000 students 24 216,000
2340 Firestone Boulevard 51,020 square feet 0.03 1,531
South Gate Shopping Center 264,750 square feet 0.325 86,044
LAUSD South Region Elementary School #9 650 students 24 15,600
LAUSD South Region High School #9 1,431 students 24 34,344
Southeast Courthouse Project 99,518 square feet 0.24 23,884
South Gate Gateway Project 550,000 square feet 0.125 68,750
Atlantic Park Plaza Project 50,000 square feet 0.325 16,250
Calden Court Apartments 225 units 187.2 42,120
Aztec Market and Deli 11,230 square feet 0.12 1,348
47 units 187.2 8,798
Firestone Village
15,000 square feet 0.12 1,800
Estimated Water Usage of the Proposed Project and Related Projects 534,531
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
1
The City’s estimated available water supply is 2,101 acre-feet of water per year. This was calculated by subtracting the
total amount of groundwater the City pumped in the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010 (9,082 acre-feet) from the maximum amount of
groundwater the City can pump annually (11,183 acre-feet).
taha 2012-090 4.14-11
Wastewater
Cumulative impacts related to wastewater treatment and conveyance infrastructure are evaluated within the
geographic context of the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of South Gate and the Sanitation Districts of
Los Angeles County (LACSD). Of the 46 related projects, 11 are within the City of South Gate and the
service area of the LACSD. The total estimated wastewater generation of the 11 related projects and the
proposed project is listed in Table 4.14-6. The total wastewater generation of the proposed project in
combination with the related projects is approximately 328,347 gpd, accounting for less than one percent of
the remaining treatment capacity of the LACSD Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP).2
Accordingly, wastewater generated by the proposed project in combination with the related projects would
not exceed available treatment capacity of the JWPCP. In addition, the proposed project, and the related
projects would not cause the JWPCP to exceed applicable wastewater treatment requirements because the
JWPCP operates under a NPDES permit and is required to comply with all Los Angeles Regional Water
Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) wastewater treatment requirements. Therefore, impacts related to
wastewater would not be cumulatively considerable.
TABLE 4.14-6: ESTIMATED WASTEWATER GENERATION OF THE RELATED PROJECTS AND

PROPOSED PROJECT
Wastewater
Generation Rate Wastewater
Project Quantity Units (gpd/unit) /a/ Generation (gpd)
South Gate Shopping Center 264,750 feefeet feet
square 0.325 86,043
LAUSD South Region Elementary School #9 650 students 20 13,000
LAUSD South Region High School #9 1,431 students 20 28,620
Southeast Courthouse 99,518 square feet 0.2 19,903
South Gate Gateway Project 550,000 square feet 0.3 165,000
Calden Court Apartments 225 units 156 35,100
47 units 156 7,332
Firestone Village
15,000 square feet 0.1 1,500
Estimated Water Usage of the Proposed Project and Related Projects 328,347
which is available at http://www.lacsd.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3531 and Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide 2006.
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
Solid Waste
Cumulative impacts related to solid waste is evaluated within the geographic context of the jurisdictional
boundaries of the City of South Gate. Of these 46 related projects, 11 are within the City of South Gate. The
total estimated solid waste generation of the 11 related projects and the proposed project, is listed in
Table 4.14-7. The total solid waste generation of the proposed project in combination with the related
projects is approximately 30,452 pounds, or 15 tons, per day (ppd). Solid waste generated by the proposed
project and related projects accounts approximately five percent of the maximum intake capacity of the
landfills serving the City of South Gate. Accordingly, the disposal of solid waste generated by the proposed
project in combination with the eight related projects would not exceed intake capacity of the landfills
serving the City. Therefore, impacts related to the solid waste would not be cumulatively considerable.
2
The estimated remaining capacity of the JWPCP is 121 million gpd. This was calculated by subtracting the average flow
of wastewater treated at the JWPCP (279 million gpd) from the maximum amount of wastewater the JWPCP can treat (400 million
gpd).
taha 2012-090 4.14-12
TABLE 4.14-7: ESTIMATED SOLID WASTE GENERATION OF THE RELATED PROJECTS AND
PROPOSED PROJECT
Solid Waste Solid Waste
Generation Rate Generation
Project Quantity Units (ppd/unit) /a/ Usage (ppd)
2340 Firestone Boulevard 51 employee 8.93 455
South Gate Shopping Center 530 employee 10.53 5,581
LAUSD South Region Elementary School #9 85 employee 10.53 895
LAUSD South Region High School #9 245 employee 10.53 2,580
Southeast Courthouse 90 employee 10.53 948
2525 Firestone Boulevard 722 employee 8.93 6,447
South Gate Gateway Project 1100 employee 10.53 11,583
Atlantic Park Plaza Project 100 employee 10.53 1,053
Calden Court Apartments 225 units 12.34 2,777
Aztec Market and Deli 23 employee 10.53 242
47 units 12.23 575
Firestone Village
30 employee 10.53 316
Estimated Solid Waste Generation of the Proposed Project and Related Projects 30,452
/a/ The solid waste generation rates were obtained from the solid waste generation rates were obtained from the California Department of Resources
Recycling and Recovery website titled, Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates, which is available at:
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastechar/wastegenrates/ and the Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide 2006.
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
Electricity
Cumulative impacts related to electricity would be evaluated within the geographic context of the jurisdictional
boundaries of the Southern California Edison (SCE) service area. Related projects within the Cities of South
Gate, Lynwood, Downey, Huntington Park and unincorporated Los Angeles County are within the service area
of SCE. The total estimated electricity usage of the related projects within these five jurisdictions and the
proposed project is listed in Table 4.14-8. The total electricity usage of the proposed project in combination
with all related projects is approximately 232 million kilowatt-hour per year, accounting for less than one
percent of the total electricity SCE supplied to its customers in 2010. The estimated electricity usage of the
proposed project in combination with related projects represents a nominal amount of the electricity SCE is
capable of generating and supplying to its customers. Accordingly, the proposed project and related projects is
not anticipated to cause SCE to expand existing, or construct new electricity generating facilities. In addition,
the proposed project and related projects are required to comply with all applicable local and State energy codes
and conservation requirements. Compliance local and State energy codes and conservation requirements would
ensure the proposed project and related projects would not result in the wasteful or inefficient use of energy.
Therefore, impacts related to electricity would not be cumulatively considerable.
taha 2012-090 4.14-13

TABLE 4.14-8: ESTIMATED ELECTRICITY USAGE OF THE RELATED PROJECTS AND PROPOSED
PROJECT
Electricity Usage
Rate Electricity Usage
Project Quantity Units (kwh/unit/year) /a/ (kwh/year)
Proposed Project 100,000 square feet 11.55 1,155,000
South Gate Shopping Center 264,750 square feet 13.55 3,587,363
LAUSD South Region Elementary School #9 /a/ 57,950 square feet 10.50 608,475
Southeast Los Angeles 99,518 square feet 12.95 1,288,758
LAUSD South Region High School #9 161,970 square feet 10.50 1,700,685
Calden Court Apartments 225 unit 5,626.50 1,198,462
47 unit 5,626.50 264,445
Firestone Village
15,000 square feet 13.55 203,250
Habitat for Humanity 10 unit 5,626.50 56,265
Park Place Project 99 unit 5,626.50 557,024
Northgate Markets 60,820 unit 13.55 824,111
Proposed Supermarket 10,550 square feet 13.55 142,953
Downey Gateway 25,000 square feet 47.45 1,186,250
Tierra Luna Specific Plan -Condominiums 1,500 unit 5,626.50 8,439,750
Tierra Luna Specific Plan-Hotel 450 rooms 9.95 4,478
Tierra Luna Specific Plan-General Office 675,000 square feet 12.95 8,741,250
Tierra Luna Specific Plan- Shopping Center 1,200,000 square feet 13.55 16,260,000
LAUSD South Region Elementary School #5 76,355 square feet 10.50 801,728
LAUSD South Region High School #7 193,621 square feet 10.50 2,033,021
R2004-00142 (Banquet Hall) 7,722 square feet 10.50 81,081
MLK Jr. Medical Center-Hospital 784,910 square feet 21.70 17,032,547
MLK Jr. Medical Center-Commercial/Retail 80,000 square feet 13.55 1,084,000
MLK Jr. Medical Center-Single-Family Residential 100 unit 5,626.50 562,650
MLK Jr. Medical Center-Medical Office 300,000 square feet 12.95 3,885,000
MLK Jr. Medical Center-General Office 150,000 square feet 12.95 1,942,500
Warehouse 722,473 square feet 4.35 3,142,758
South Gate Gateway Project 550,000 square feet 10.50 5,775,000
Retail 7,843 square feet 13.55 106,273
Distribution Center 200,007 square feet 4.35 870,030
Condominium 46 unit 5,626.50 258,819
Alliance Heritage Middle School 6,083 square feet 10.5 63,872
Senior Housing Retail 25,000 square feet 5,626.50 140,662,500
Apartment 30 unit 5,626.50 168,795
Auto Body Parts Sale 318 square feet 13.55 4,309
Pawn Shop 5,880 square feet 13.55 79,674
Tattoo Parlor 5,376 square feet 13.55 72,845
Used Auto Sales 5,000 square feet 13.55 67,750
Recycling Center 41,857 square feet 13.55 567,162
Outdoor Storage Yard 30,375 square feet 13.55 411,581
Used Auto Sales 318 square feet 13.55 4,309
Light Manufacturing 36,1548 square feet 13.55 4,898,975
Apartment 10 unit 5,626.50 56,265
Dance Hall 15,305 square feet 10.50 160,703
Light Industrial 33,395 square feet 4.35 145,268
Estimated Electricity Usage of the Proposed Project and Related Projects 232,502,810
/a/ Electricity usage rates were obtained from the Southern California Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April, 1993.
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
taha 2012-090 4.14-14

Natural Gas
Cumulative impacts related to wastewater treatment and conveyance infrastructure would be evaluated
within the geographic context of the jurisdictional boundaries of the Southern California Gas Company
(SoCalGas) service area. All 46 related projects and the proposed project are within the service area of
SoCalGas. The total estimated natural gas usage of the related projects and the proposed project is listed in
Table 4.14-9. The total natural gas usage of the proposed project in combination with the 46 related projects
is approximately 34 million cubic feet per month of natural gas, accounting for less than one percent of the
monthly interstate natural gas pipeline capacity. The estimated natural gas usage of the proposed project and
related projects represents a nominal amount of natural gas that SoCalGas is capable of supplying to its
customers. Accordingly, the proposed project and related projects are not anticipated to cause SoCalGas to
expand existing, or construct new natural gas generating facilities. In addition, the proposed project and
related projects is required to comply with all applicable local and State energy codes and conservation
requirements. Compliance local and State energy codes and conservation requirements would ensure that the
proposed project, and related projects would not result in the wasteful or inefficient use of energy. Therefore,
the impacts related to natural gas would not be cumulatively considerable.
TABLE 4.14-9: ESTIMATED NATURAL GAS USAGE OF THE RELATED PROJECT AND PROPOSED
PROJECT
Natural Gas
Natural Gas Usage Rate Usage
Project Quantity Units (cu feet/unit/month) /a,b/ (cu ft/month)
Proposed Project 100,000 square feet 2.9 290,000
South Gate Shopping Center 264,750 square feet 2.9 767,775
LAUSD South Region Elementary School #9 /a/ 57,950 square feet 2.9 168,055
Southeast Los Angeles 99,518 square feet 2.0 199,036
LAUSD South Region High School #9 161,970 square feet 2.9 469,713
Calden Court Apartments 225 unit 4,011.5 902,587
47 unit 4,011.5 188,540
Firestone Village
15,000 square feet 2.9 43,500
Habitat for Humanity 10 unit 4,011.5 40,115
Park Place Project 99 unit 4,011.5 397,139
Northgate Markets 60,820 square feet 2.9 176,378
Proposed Supermarket 10,550 square feet 2.9 30,595
Downey Gateway 25,000 square feet 2.9 72,500
Tierra Luna Specific Plan-Condominiums 1,500 unit 4,011.5 6,017,250
Tierra Luna Specific Plan-Hotel 450 Rooms 4.8 2,160
Tierra Luna Specific Plan-General Office 675,000 square feet 2.0 1,350,000
Tierra Luna Specific Plan-Shopping Center 1,200,000 square feet 2.9 3,480,000
LAUSD South Region Elementary School #5 76,355 square feet 2.9 221,430
Watts Cinema & Education Center 33,000 square feet 2.90 95,700
HRB08-005 (Public High School) /b/ /b/ -
Jordan Downs Redevelopment Master Plan - 1,800 unit
4,011.5 7,220,700
Condominium
Jordan Downs Redevelopment Master Plan- 70,000 square feet
2.9 203,000
Community Multi-Use
Animo Watts #2 at Flourney Elementary School /b/ /b/ -
R2004-00142(Banquet Hall) 7,722 square feet 2.9 22,394
MLK Jr. Medical Center Campus 784,910 square feet
2.9 2,276,239
Redevelopment-Hospital
2.9 232,000
Redevelopment-Commercial/Retail
MLK Jr. Medical Center Campus 100 unit
6,665.0 666,500
Redevelopment-Single-Family Residential
taha 2012-090 4.14-15

TABLE 4.14-9: ESTIMATED NATURAL GAS USAGE OF THE RELATED PROJECT AND PROPOSED
PROJECT
Natural Gas
Natural Gas Usage Rate Usage
Project Quantity Units (cu feet/unit/month) /a,b/ (cu ft/month)
2.0 600,000
Redevelopment-Medical Office
2.0 300,000
Redevelopment-General Office
MLK Jr. Medical Center Campus 722,473
square feet 2.9 2,095,172
Redevelopment-Warehouse
South Gate Gateway Project 550,000 square feet 2.9 1,595,000
Retail 7,843 square feet 2.9 22,745
Distribution Center 200,007 square feet 2.9 580,020
Condominium 46 unit 4,011.5 184,529
Alliance Heritage Middle School 6,083 square feet 2.9 17,641
Senior Housing Retail 25,000 square feet 2.9 72,500
Apartment 30 unit 4,011.5 120,345
Auto Body Parts Sale 318 square feet 2.9 922
Pawn Shop 5,880 square feet 2.9 17,052
Tattoo Parlor 5,376 square feet 2.9 15,590
Recycling Center 41,857 square feet 2.9 121,385
Outdoor Storage Yard 30,375 square feet 2.9 88,088
Used Auto Sales 318 square feet 2.9 922
Light Manufacturing 36,1548 square feet 2.9 1,048,489
Apartment 10 unit 4,011.5 40,115
Dance Hall 15,305 square feet 2.9 44,385
Light Industrial 33,395
square feet 2.9 96,846
Estimated Natural Gas Usage of the Proposed Project and Related Projects 34,208,848
/a/ Natural gas usage rates were obtained from the Southern California Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 1993.
/b/ Natural gas usage for this project is not included in the calculation of estimated total natural gas usage of the proposed project and related projects.
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
taha 2012-090 4.14-16

2013 Firestone Education Center Master Plan 5.0 Alternatives
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project or to the location of the
project that could feasibly avoid or lessen significant environmental impacts while substantially attaining the
basic objectives of the project. 1 An EIR should also evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. This
chapter sets forth potential alternatives to the proposed project and provides a qualitative analysis of each
alternative and a comparison of each alternative to the proposed project. Key provisions of the CEQA
Guidelines pertaining to the alternatives analysis are summarized below. 2
• The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project including alternative locations that are
capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives
would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly.
• The No Project Alternative shall be evaluated along with its potential impacts. The No Project
Alternative analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation is
published, as well as what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project
were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community
services.
• The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a "rule of reason." Therefore, the EIR must
evaluate only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited
to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the proposed project.
• For alternative locations, only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant
effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR.
• An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose
implementation is remote and speculative.
The range of feasible alternatives is selected and discussed in a manner intended to foster meaningful public
participation and informed decision making. Among the factors that may be taken into account when
addressing the feasibility of alternatives (as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f][1]) are
environmental impacts, site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan
consistency, regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent could reasonably
acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the alternative site.
An EIR must briefly describe the rationale for selection and rejection of alternatives. The lead agency may
make an initial determination as to which alternatives are feasible, and, therefore, merit in-depth
consideration. 3 Alternatives may be eliminated from detailed consideration in the EIR if they fail to meet
project objectives, are infeasible, or do not avoid any significant environmental effects. 4
5.1 PROJECT-LEVEL IMPACTS

As addressed in this Subsequent Draft EIR, the proposed project would create significant and unavoidable
impacts associated with:
• Cultural Resources (Historical Resources). Due to the removal of Building 4 and its connections
1
CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, § 15126.6, 2005.
2
Ibid.
3
CEQA Guidelines, CCR, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, §15126.6(f)(3), 2005.
4
CEQA Guidelines, CCR, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, §15126.6(c), 2005.
taha 2012-090 5-1

• Noise (Construction). Noise generated by construction of the proposed project would exceed the City’s
significance threshold at residential land uses north and east of the proposed project site resulting in
significant and unavoidable impacts related to noise. Mitigation measures are proposed to address this
impact; however, no feasible mitigation measures were identified to reduce the significant impact to a
• Transportation and Traffic (Circulation and Congestion Management Plan). New vehicle trips
resulting from the proposed project would create significant and unavoidable impacts related to the
circulation system (i.e. intersection operations) and Congestion Management Plan (CMP). Mitigation
mitigation measures were identified to reduce all of the significant impacts to a less-than-significant
level. No feasible mitigation measures were identified to reduce the significant impact related to the
CMP (i.e., intersection) to a less-than-significant level.
All other impacts identified as potentially significant would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with
implementation of mitigation measures identified in the respective impact analysis section of this Subsequent
Draft EIR.
Proposed Project Objectives
Per the CEQA Guidelines, the achievement of project objectives must be balanced by the ability of an
alternative to reduce the significant impacts of the project. The proposed project’s objectives include:
• Provide a full-service education center to replace the existing SGEC and create a true campus
environment for ELAC’s satellite campus;
• Provide greater capacity to adequately serve the existing and future demand for higher education
facilities in the southeast Los Angeles County region;
• Develop and implement plans and procedures to enhance ELAC satellite campus’ visibility and
reputation for quality;
• Foster a culture of academic excellence by strengthening the educational programs offered at the ELAC
satellite campus that will lead directly to greater student success;
• Create community-oriented development that successfully serves students and the community; and
• Provide economic benefits to the City of South Gate and its residents.
Any alternative evaluated should meet as many of these project objectives as possible. In addition, while not
specifically required under CEQA, other parameters may be used to further establish criteria for selecting
alternatives such as adjustments to project phasing, conformance to all existing zoning requirements, and
other “fine-tuning” that could shape feasible alternatives in a manner that may result in reducing identified
environmental impacts. In some instances, when the project results in environmental impacts that are
reduced to less-than-significant levels with mitigation, an alternative may reduce these less-than-significant
impacts even further.
5.2 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

The CEQA statute, the CEQA Guidelines, and related recent court cases do not specify a precise number of
alternatives to be evaluated in an EIR. Rather, “the range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by
the rule of reason that sets forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice.” 5 At the same
time, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(b) requires that “...the discussion of alternatives shall focus on
alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any
significant effects of the project” and Section 15126.6(f) requires, “The alternatives shall be limited to ones
5
CEQA Guidelines, CCR, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, §15126.6(f).
taha 2012-090 5-2

that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project.” Accordingly,
alternatives that would not address potentially significant effects are not considered herein. However, the
CEQA Guidelines require that a "No Project" alternative must be included and, if appropriate, an alternative
site location should be analyzed. 6 Other project alternatives may involve a modification of the proposed land
uses, density, or other project elements at the same project location.
Alternatives should be selected on the basis of their ability to attain all or most of the basic objectives of the
project while reducing the project’s significant environmental effects. The CEQA Guidelines state that
“...[t]he EIR should briefly describe the rationale for selecting alternatives to be discussed [and]...shall
include sufficient information to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis and comparison with the proposed
project.” 7 The feasibility of the alternatives is another consideration in the selection of alternatives. The
CEQA Guidelines state that "[a]mong the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the
feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan
consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations [and] jurisdictional boundaries...” 8 “The range of feasible
alternatives shall be selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and
informed decision making.” 9 Alternatives that are considered remote or speculative, or whose effects cannot
be reasonably predicted do not require consideration. Therefore, feasibility, the potential to mitigate
significant project-related impacts, and reasonably informing the decision-maker are the primary
considerations in the selection and evaluation of alternatives.
Alternative 1 – No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative is required by CEQA Guidelines

Section 15126.6 (e)(2) and assumes that the proposed project would not be implemented. The No Project
Alternative allows decision-makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the
impacts of not approving the proposed project. However, “no project” does not necessarily mean that
development on the project site will be prohibited. The No Project Alternative includes “what would be
reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current
plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services” (CEQA Section 15126.6 [e][2]).
In this case, the No Project Alternative assumes the project site would eventually be re-occupied with
industrial uses, and the existing South Gate Education Center (SGEC) would continue to operate at its
current location.
Alternative 2 – Historic Preservation Alternative. Alternative 2 assumes that Building 4, which has been
identified as a contributor to a California Register-eligible district, would not be demolished. The Historic
Preservation Alternative assumes that Building 4 would be retained and rehabilitated for college
programming. Alternative 2 would not require the construction of a new building for college uses; however,
similar to the proposed project, a parking structure would be constructed on-site to provide parking for the
college. Vehicular access to the FEC campus would be exclusively from Firestone Boulevard. Consistent
with the proposed project, student enrollment would not exceed 9,000 students under Alternative 2.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION
As discussed above, a lead agency need not consider every conceivable alternative. However, the EIR shall
discuss the rationale for selection and elimination of alternatives. Among the factors that may eliminate
alternatives from meriting a detailed discussion are “failure to meet most of the basic project objectives,
infeasibility, or inability to avoid significant environmental impacts (CEQA Section 15126.6 [c])”. In
addition to the two alternatives described above, three alternatives were considered and eliminated from
consideration:
6
CEQA Guidelines, CCR, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, §15126.6(e) and §15126(f)(2).
7
CEQA Guidelines, CCR, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, §15126.6(e) and §15126(f).
8
CEQA Guidelines, CCR, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, §15126.6(f)(1).
9
CEQA Guidelines, CCR, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, §15126.6(f).
taha 2012-090 5-3

Alternative 3 - Expansion of the Existing South Gate Educational Center (SGEC). This alternative was
eliminated because unlike the project site, LACCD does not own the existing SGEC site. Additionally, there
is not enough available land to expand the SGEC to accommodate up to 9,000 students. Other constraints
including roadways and hazardous materials concerns also prevent the expansion of the SGEC onto adjacent
sites. Therefore, this alternative was eliminated from consideration.
Alternative 4 - Alternate Site. The Ameron International Concrete Pipe Manufacturing Facility is located
in an industrial area at Atlantic Avenue/Firestone Boulevard intersection in the City of South Gate. The
approximately 35-acre site was previously considered and an EIR was initiated for this site. Ultimately, this
site was eliminated from consideration due to hazardous materials concerns with the property. This site has
since been purchased and is no longer available for acquisition.
Alternative 5 – Reduced Size Alternative. Reducing the size of the proposed FEC may reduce or eliminate
traffic impacts related to the proposed project; however, a reduced size alternative would not meet the
proposed project’s objective of providing greater capacity to adequately serve the existing and future demand
for higher education facilities in the southeast Los Angeles County region. Additionally, Alternative 5 would
not eliminate the significant and unavoidable historical resource impact resulting from the removal of
Building 4. Therefore, this alternative was eliminated from consideration.
ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE

Aesthetics
Under Alternative 1, the SGEC would continue to operate at its current location, and the existing buildings
on the project site would be occupied with industrial uses. It is likely that some renovation activities
associated with the occupation of existing buildings would be occur; however, it is not possible to know what
renovations would be implemented. It is assumed that renovations would not alter the exterior of the
buildings on-site, and no new buildings or structures would be constructed on the project site. Therefore, the
visual character and quality of the project site and surrounding area would remain unchanged. Visual
improvements to the project site that would occur under the proposed project, such as landscaping and the
screening of industrial activities would not occur under Alternative 1. However, the California Register
eligible South Gate Historic District would remain intact under Alternative 1, reducing less-than-significant
impacts related to scenic resources compared to the proposed project. Unlike the proposed project, less-than-
significant light and glare impacts and shade and shadow impacts at adjacent residential buildings would not
occur under Alternative 1 as the proposed parking structure would not be constructed. Therefore, impacts
related to aesthetics under the No Project Alternative would be less than the proposed project.
Air Quality
Under Alternative 1, no new structures would be constructed on the project site. However, some renovation
activities associated with the occupation of existing buildings would occur. These activities would generate
temporary construction emissions. However, as Alternative 1 would involve considerably less construction
than the proposed project, construction air quality impacts under Alternative 1 would be less than the
proposed project. With regard to operational air quality emissions, it is not possible to know what type of
industrial use would reoccupy the project site; however, it is likely that a future industrial use would generate
more NOx emissions than the proposed project. Therefore, operational air quality impacts would be greater
that the proposed project. Given that construction activities are temporary, impacts related to air quality
under the No Project Alternative would be greater than the proposed project.
Cultural Resources
Under Alternative 1, historic resources on the project site would be retained. Therefore, the significant and
unavoidable impact to historical resources occurring under the proposed project would not occur under
Alternative 1. In addition, unlike the proposed project, Alternative 1would not involve grading or excavation
taha 2012-090 5-4

activities that have the potential to impact cultural resources. Therefore, impacts related to cultural resources
under the No Project Alternative would be less than the proposed project.
Geology and Soils

Under Alternative 1, the SGEC would continue to operate at its current location, and existing buildings on
the project site would be occupied with industrial uses. As with most of Southern California, the project site
is susceptible to inherent geologic conditions, such as strong seismic ground shaking and liquefaction.
However, as no new structures would be constructed under Alternative 1, the No Project Alternative would
not expose new structures to seismic hazards. Additionally, ground-disturbing activities that have the
potential to cause soil erosion or instability would not occur under Alternative 1. Therefore, impacts related
to geology and soils under the No Project Alternative would be less than the proposed project.

Under Alternative 1, the project site would be occupied with an industrial use. While it is not possible to
know what type of industrial uses would occupy the project site, future industrial uses would create
stationary sources and vehicular emissions. Daily and regional greenhouse gas emissions from industrial
uses could exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds. Therefore, impacts related to greenhouse gas
emissions under the No Project Alternative would be greater than the proposed project.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Under Alternative 1, the SGEC would continue to operate at its current location, and the project site would
be occupied with industrial uses. Depending on the type of industrial uses that occupy the project site, it is
likely that Alternative 1 would utilize and generate more hazardous materials and waste than the proposed
project. However, hazardous materials and waste are well regulated, and future industrial uses are not
anticipated to create a significant impact. Nonetheless, Alternative 1 would not result in ground disturbing
activities associated with demolition of existing buildings and the construction of a new building, and the
likelihood of encountering contaminated soils is eliminated compared to the proposed project. Therefore,
impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials under the No Project Alternative would be less than to the
proposed project.

Under Alternative 1, the project site would be occupied with industrial uses. While it is likely that some
renovation activities associated with the occupation of existing buildings would occur, no new buildings
would be constructed on the project site. Accordingly, the hydrological conditions and drainage pattern of
the project site are would remain the same as under current conditions. Therefore, Alternative 1 would not
increase the likelihood that erosion would occur. Therefore, impacts related to hydrology and water quality
under the No Project Alternative would be similar to the proposed project
Land Use and Planning

Under Alternative 1, the project site would be occupied with industrial uses. The preservation of industrial
land uses in the Los Angeles region is an increasing concern, and Alternative 1 would result in industrial land
uses being preserved. In addition, Alternative 1 would maintain consistency with the existing land use
designation and zoning for the project site. However, the City of South Gate’s General Plan states that the
project site should be rehabilitated and adaptively reused to create the South Gate College District.
Therefore, Alternative 1 would prevent the City of achieving its vision. Therefore, impacts related to land
use and planning under the No Project Alternative would be greater than the proposed project.
Noise and Vibration

Under Alternative 1, no new buildings would be constructed on the project site; however, it is likely that
some renovation activities associated with the occupation of the existing buildings would occur. These
taha 2012-090 5-5

activities would result in temporary construction noise and vibration. As Alternative 1 would involve less
construction activity than the proposed project, construction noise and vibration impacts under Alternative 1
would be less than the proposed project. With regard to operational noise and vibration, it is not possible to
know what type of industrial use would reoccupy the project site; however, it is likely that a future industrial
use would generate more noise and vibration than the proposed project. Therefore, impacts related to
operational noise and vibration impacts under the No Project Alternative would be greater that the proposed
project.
Population, Housing, and Employment

Under Alternative 1, the SGEC would continue to operate at its current location, and the project site would
be occupied with industrial uses. As existing buildings would be retained under Alternative 1, the
displacement of residents or housing would not occur. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 1 does
not include a residential component that would generate population growth but would create new jobs at the
project site. Therefore, impacts related to population, housing, and employment under the No Project
Alternative would be similar to the proposed project.
Public Services
Under Alternative 1, the project site would be occupied with industrial uses. It is not possible to know
exactly what sort of industrial use would occupy the project site; however, given that industrial uses have and
continue to occur on the project site in the past, it is likely that the No Project Alternative would not require
additional fire or police protection services, nor would Alternative 1 have an impact on schools, parks, or
other public services. Therefore, impacts related to public services under the No Project Alternative would
be less than the proposed project.
Transportation and Traffic

Under Alternative 1, the project site would be occupied with industrial uses. It is not possible to know
exactly what sort of industrial use would reoccupy the project site; however, the total building area of
existing buildings on-site, which would be reoccupied, is 1,067,957 square feet. Assuming a daily trip rate
of 1.061 trips per 1,000 square feet, an industrial use would generate approximately 1,140 daily trips
compared to 2,780 daily trips generated by the proposed project. Therefore, impacts related to transportation
and traffic under the No Project Alternative would be less than the proposed project.
Utilities and Services Systems

Under Alternative 1, the existing the project site would be re-occupied with industrial uses. The
consumption of water and the generation of wastewater and solid waste by a future industrial land use is not
known. However, given that industrial uses have been located on the project site in the past, it is anticipated
that the No Project Alternative would have no impacts on utilities and service systems. Therefore, impacts
related to utilities and service systems under the No Project Alternative would be less than the proposed
project.
ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE 2 – HISTORIC PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVE

Aesthetics
Under Alternative 2, Building 4 would be rehabilitated for college programming and a parking structure
would be constructed. The retention and rehabilitation of Building 4, a contributor to a California Register-
eligible district, would reduce impacts to scenic resources under Alternative 2, compared to the proposed
project. The new parking structure would create light and glare impacts and shade and shadow impacts,
consistent with the proposed project. As the project site would be used as the FEC campus, visual
improvements that would occur under the proposed project would also occur under Alternative 2, but to a
lesser extent due to constraints created by the retention of Building 4. The visual character of the project site
as a satellite community college campus would be similar to the proposed project, although the visual quality
taha 2012-090 5-6

of the project site would likely be inferior under Alternative 2 compared to the proposed project in the
absence of a new building, oriented in a manner as to a create a true campus environment, and less
landscaping and open space. Therefore, impacts related to aesthetics under Alternative 2 would be similar
the proposed project.
Air Quality
Under Alternative 2, Building 4 would be rehabilitated for college programming rather than demolished and
replaced with a new building. Therefore, Alternative 2 would involve less construction activity than the
proposed project, and construction air quality impacts under Alternative 2 would be less than the proposed
project. However, with regard to operational air quality emissions, Alternative 2 would result in the same
emissions as the proposed project and the same number of students could be enrolled at the FEC. Therefore,
impacts related to air quality under Alternative 2 would be similar than the proposed project.
Cultural Resources
Under Alternative 2, Building 4 would be rehabilitated for college programming. A significant and
unavoidable impact related to historical resources would be avoided unlike the proposed project.
Renovations to the existing buildings would be required to conform to the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards, as the project site was determined to be eligible as a California Register Historic District. The
construction of a new parking structure under Alternative 2 would result in earth moving activities that have
the potential to impact cultural resources, similar to the proposed project. As the significant and unavoidable
impact to historical resources would be avoided under, impacts related to cultural resources under Alternative
2 would be less than the proposed project.
Geology and Soils

Under Alternative 2, Building 4 would be rehabilitated for college programming rather than demolished and
replaced with a new building. Similar to the proposed project, buildings for community college use would
need to be Field Act compliant which would ensure that all impacts related to geology and soil would be less
than significant. Therefore, impacts related to geology and soils under Alternative 2 would be similar to the
proposed project.

Under Alternative 2, the existing buildings on the project site would be rehabilitated for college
programming. Daily and regional greenhouse gas emissions under Alternative 2 would be the same as the
proposed project, as the same number of students would be enrolled. Therefore, impacts related to
greenhouse gas emissions under Alternative 2 would be similar to the proposed project.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials

would be constructed. As ground disturbing activities associated with the construction of the parking
structure would occur under Alternative 2, similar to the proposed project, impacts associated with soil
contamination and hazardous materials would also be similar. Additionally, during rehabilitation of
Building 4 asbestos containing materials and lead based paint would be encountered, consistent with the
proposed project. Therefore, impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials under Alternative 2 would
be similar to the proposed project.

Under Alternative 2, Building 4 would be rehabilitated for college programming. and a parking structure
would be constructed. Construction of parking structure would alter drainage patterns on the site. Similar to
the proposed project, Alternative 2 would increase the amount of pervious surfaces on the project site
associated with the provision of landscaping and open space, but to a lesser extent due to constraints created
taha 2012-090 5-7

by the retention of Building 4 which has a large footprint than the proposed building. Regardless, this
increase in pervious surfaces would reduce the amount of stormwater runoff leaving the project site, reducing
impacts to the City’s storm drain system and water quality compared to existing conditions. Additionally,
Alternative 2 would required to comply with the same LACCD mandate and NPDES requirements as the
proposed project which would ensure that Alternative 2 does not violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements, or otherwise degrade water quality. Therefore, impacts related to hydrology and
water quality under Alternative 2 would be similar to the proposed project.
Land Use and Planning

Under Alternative 2, Building 4 would be rehabilitated for college programming. Similar to the proposed
project, Alternative 2 would be consistent with the City’s General Plan which states that the future
development of project site should create the South Gate College District. Therefore, impacts related to land
use and planning under Alternative 2 would be similar to the proposed project.
Noise
would be constructed. Accordingly, Alternative 2 would involve less construction activity than the proposed
project, and construction noise and vibration impacts under Alternative 2 would be less than the proposed
project. However, with regard to operational noise and vibration, Alternative 2 would generate the same
noise and vibration as the proposed project, as the same number of students would be enrolled. Therefore,
impacts related to noise and vibration under Alternative 2 would be less than the proposed project.
Population, Housing, and Employment

would be constructed. Consistent with the proposed project, Alternative 2 does not include a housing
component that would result in population or housing growth. Additionally, Alternative 2 would not result
in the displacement of residents or housing as no housing currently occurs on the project site. As student
enrollment would be the same under Alternative 2 and the proposed project, the number of new jobs on the
project site would also be the same. Therefore, impacts related to population, housing, and employment
under Alternative 2 would be similar to the proposed project.
Public Services
Under Alternative 2, Building 4 would be rehabilitated for college programming. Similar to the proposed
project, student enrollment would not exceed 9,000 students, and the demand on public services would be the
same as the proposed project. Therefore, impacts related to public services under Alternative 2 would be
similar to the proposed project.

would be constructed. Similar to the proposed project, student enrollment would not exceed 9,000 students,
and the same number of daily trips would be generated as the proposed project. However, because vehicle
access would be limited to one driveway on Firestone Boulevard, in contrast to the proposed project where
vehicle access would be available from three driveways; two on Santa Fe Avenue and one on Firestone
Boulevard, traffic impacts on Firestone Boulevard under Alternative 2 would likely be greater than the
proposed project. Additionally, in the absence of additional vehicle access points and constraints created by
the retention of Building 4, adequate emergency access to the FEC and parking structure would not be easily
accommodated. Therefore, impacts related to traffic and transportation under Alternative 2 would be greater
than the proposed project.
taha 2012-090 5-8

Utilities and Services Systems

would be constructed. Similar to the proposed project, student enrollment would not exceed 9,000 students,
and the demand for utilities would be the same as the proposed project. Therefore, impacts related to utilities
and service systems under Alternative 2 would be similar to the proposed project.
ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE

CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires that an “environmentally superior” alternative be selected among
the alternatives that are evaluated in the EIR. In general, the environmentally superior alternative is the
alternative that would be expected to generate the fewest adverse impacts. If the No Project Alternative is
identified as environmentally superior, then another environmentally superior alternative shall be identified
among the other alternatives. A summary of the two alternatives’ impacts relative to the proposed project are
shown Table 5-1.
Alternative 1 would eliminate the significant and unavoidable impacts related to historical resources and
transportation and traffic that would occur under the proposed project. However, as the No Project
Alternative assumes that the project site would eventually be re-occupied with industrial uses, it is likely that
a future industrial use would generate greater air quality, greenhouse gas, and noise impacts than the
proposed project. In addition, while the No Project Alternative would maintain consistency with the existing
land use designation and zoning for the project site, the City of South Gate’s General Plan states that the
project site should be rehabilitated and adaptively reused to create the South Gate College District.
Therefore, the No Project Alternative would prevent the City of South Gate from achieving its vision of the
South Gate College District and impacts related to land use would be greater than the proposed project.
Although Alternative 1 would eliminate significant and unavoidable impacts that would occur under the
proposed project, Alternative 1 would not achieve any of the proposed project’s objectives. Furthermore, the
Alternative 1 assumes the existing South Gate Education Center (SGEC) would continue to operate at its
current location; however, this facility is currently being leased. This lease cannot be renewed; therefore,
Alternative 1 is not viable option.
Alternative 2 would eliminate the significant and unavoidable impact related to historical resources as
Building 4 would be retained. However, because Alternative 2 would accommodate the same number of
students as the proposed project while reducing the number of driveways providing vehicle access to the
project site, the significant and unavoidable impact related to transportation and traffic identified for the
proposed project would not be avoided and is anticipated to be greater. All other impacts would similar to
the proposed project. Alternative 2 would achieve most of the proposed project’s objectives, but to a lesser
extent. Alternative 2 constrains the ability of the FEC to create a true campus environment and community-
oriented development due to the retention of Building 4 which has a larger footprint than the proposed
building limiting the amount of open space and other amenities that could be provided on the project site and
was not designed in a manner to facilitate student and community interaction.
Of the two alternatives, Alternative 2 would be considered the environmentally superior alternative because
it avoids the impact to historical resources and would achieve most of the proposed project’s objectives.
taha 2012-090 5-9

TABLE 5-1: COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Environmental Issue Project Impact No Project Alternative Historic Preservation Alternative
Aesthetics Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) Similar (Less Than Significant)
Air Quality (Construction) Less Than Significant Less (Less Than Significant) Less (Less Than Significant)
Air Quality (Operation) Less Than Significant Greater (Less Than Significant) Similar (Less Than Significant)
Cultural Resources (Historical) Significant And Unavoidable Less (Project Impact Avoided) Less (Project Impact Avoided)
Cultural Resources (Other) Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) Similar (Less Than Significant)
Geology and Soils Less Than Significant Less (Less Than Significant) Similar (Less Than Significant)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Less Than Significant Greater (Less Than Significant) Similar (Less Than Significant)
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Less Than Significant Less (Less Than Significant) Similar (Less Than Significant)
Hydrology and Water Quality Less Than Significant Greater (Less Than Significant) Similar (Less Than Significant)
Land Use and Planning Less Than Significant Greater (Less Than Significant) Similar (Less Than Significant)
Noise (Construction) Significant and Unavoidable Less (No Impact) Less (Less Than Significant)
Noise (Operation) Less Than Significant Greater (Less Than Significant) Similar (Less Than Significant)
Population, Housing, & Employment Less Than Significant Similar (No Impact) Similar (Less Than Significant)
Public Services Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) Similar (Less Than Significant)
Traffic & Transportation (Circulation
Significant and Unavoidable Less (Less Than Significant) Greater (Significant and Unavoidable)
System and CMP)
Traffic & Transportation (Other) Less Than Significant Similar (Less Than Significant) Similar (Less Than Significant)
Utilities & Service Systems Less Than Significant Similar (Less Than Significant) Similar (Less Than Significant)
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
taha 2012-090 5-10

2013 Firestone Education Center Master Plan 6.0 Other CEQA Considerations
6.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS

CEQA Guidelines Section 15126 requires that all phases of a project must be considered when evaluating its
impact on the environment, including planning, acquisition, development, and operation. As part of this
evaluation, the EIR must also identify (1) significant environmental effects of the proposed project, (2)
significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented,
(3) significant irreversible environmental changes that would result from implementation of the proposed
project, and (4) growth-inducing impacts of the proposed project.
6.1 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE

PROPOSED PROJECT
Table 2-1 Summary of Project-Related Impacts and Mitigation Measures in Chapter 2.0 Summary and
Sections 4.1 through 4.14 of this Subsequent Draft EIR disclose the proposed project’s environmental
effects, including the level of significance both before and after mitigation.
6.2 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT

CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
IS IMPLEMENTED
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(b) requires that an EIR describe any significant impacts that cannot be
avoided, even with the implementation of feasible mitigation measures. Implementation of the proposed
project would result in the following unavoidable significant and project-related and/or cumulative impacts:
• Cultural Resources (Historical Resources). Due to the removal of Building 4 and minor alteration of
• Noise (Construction). Construction of the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable
impacts related to noise. Mitigation measures are proposed to address this impact; however, no feasible
mitigation measures were identified to reduce the significant impact to a less-than-significant level.
• Transportation and Traffic (Circulation System and Congestion Management Plan). New vehicle
trips resulting from the proposed project would create significant and unavoidable impacts related to the
circulation system (i.e. intersection operations) and Congestion Management Plan (CMP). Mitigation
mitigation measures were identified to reduce these significant impacts to a less-than-significant level.
No feasible mitigation measures were identified to reduce the significant impact related to the CMP to a
taha 2012-090 6-1

6.3 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL

EFFECTS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(c) requires a discussion of significant irreversible environmental effects
that would be caused by the proposed project. Specifically, Section 15126.2(c) states:
Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be
irreversible, since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely.
Primary impacts and, particularly secondary impacts (such as highway improvement which provides
access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also
irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irreversible
commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.
Generally, a project would result in significant irreversible environmental effects if any of the following
would occur:
• The primary and secondary impacts would generally commit future generations to similar uses;
• The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources;
• The project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from potential environmental
accidents associated with the project; or
• The proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project involves the wasteful use of
energy).
The proposed project consists of the construction and operation of a new ELAC satellite campus; the FEC.
As discussed in Section 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, construction and operation of the proposed
project would not create a significant hazard to the public. Therefore, the proposed project would not result
in irreversible damage resulting from an environmental accident associated with the proposed project, but
would generally commit future generations to similar uses. Resources that will be permanently and
continually consumed by operation of the proposed project include water, electricity, natural gas, and fossil
fuels. As discussed in Section 4.13 Utilities and Service Systems, in accordance with LACCD directives, the
FEC will be designed and constructed using the USGBC LEED - NC rating system, with the goal of reaching
the highest certification level feasible. As part of achieving a LEED certification, the proposed project
would implement energy and water efficiency features. These features would reduce the proposed projects
consumption of resources and ensure that the proposed project would not result in the wasteful or inefficient
use of resources. It is also possible that new technologies or systems will emerge or will become more cost-
effective or user-friendly that will further reduce the project site’s reliance upon nonrenewable natural
resources. Accordingly, the use of energy on-site would occur in an efficient manner and is justified as it
will be consumed by a new community college satellite campus serving the community. Therefore, the
proposed project would not result in any significant irreversible effects
6.4 EFFECTS DETERMINED NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT

Agricultural Resources
The project site is currently developed with four buildings and surface parking. The surrounding area is also
highly urbanized. There are no agricultural resources on the project site or in the surrounding area.
Therefore, no impacts related to agricultural resources would occur.
taha 2012-090 6-2

Biological Resources
highly urbanized. There are no biological resources on the project site or in the surrounding area. Therefore,
no impacts related to biological resources would occur.
Mineral Resources
highly urbanized. In addition, the project site is not located within a City- or County-designated Mineral
Resource Zone where significant mineral deposits are known to be present or within a mineral producing
area. Therefore, no impacts related to mineral resources would occur.
6.5 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS

CEQA Guidelines Section 15125.2(d) requires that growth inducing impacts of a proposed project be
considered. Growth inducing impacts are characteristics of a project that could directly or indirectly foster
economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the
surrounding environment. According to the CEQA Guidelines, such projects include those that would
remove obstacles to population growth (e.g., a major expansion of a waste water treatment plant). In
addition, as set forth in the CEQA Guidelines, increases in population may tax existing community service
facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects. The
CEQA Guidelines also state that it must not be assumed that growth in an area is necessarily beneficial,
detrimental or of little significance to the environment.
As analyzed in Section 4.10 Population, Housing and Employment, the proposed project would not directly
induce population growth, but would create new jobs in the City. The proposed project would accommodate
up to 9,000 students. To serve the projected student population, approximately 105 new jobs would be
created by the proposed project. The existing 57 jobs associated with the SGEC that would be retained and
relocated to the FEC. New jobs on the project site are anticipated in the City of South Gate General Plan
Community Design Element and desired by the City. It is not anticipated that these new jobs would cause
individuals to relocate to the City of South Gate, resulting in population growth, as these jobs can be filled by
existing City of South Gate residents or residents of nearby communities. Therefore, the proposed project
would not indirectly induce population growth.
The proposed project would result in a net increase in LACCD students and employees in the area. This
increase in activity in the area would increase demand for commercial goods and services and community
facilities. These demands could be met by existing businesses and community facilities in the area, and the
proposed open space areas and facilities including library and exercise rooms. However, as the student
enrollment capacity is reached, the demand for commercial goods and services may increase resulting in the
need for new businesses. Therefore, the proposed project could foster economic growth.
taha 2012-090 6-3

2013 Firestone Education Center Master Plan 7.0 Persons & Sources Consulted
7.0 PERSONS AND SOURCES CONSULTED

A number of technical reports and studies were utilized in the preparation of this Subsequent Draft EIR.
These reports are referenced throughout this document where appropriate. In addition, this chapter
documents all persons and sources that contributed in the preparation of this Subsequent Draft EIR.
7.1 PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONSULTED

City of South Gate Parks & Recreation
Paul Adams, Director of Parks & Recreation, E-mail correspondence, January 25, 2011.
City of South Gate Public Works Department

Kev Tcharkhoutian, Telephone Conversation, January 2, 2011.
County of Los Angeles Fire Department Forestry Division

John Todd, Chief, Written Correspondence, January 26, 2011.
East Los Angeles College

Ryan Cornner, Associate Dean of Research, E-mail Correspondence, November 19, 2012.
Los Angeles County Fire Department, Planning Division

Loretta Bagwell, Planning Analyst, E-mail Correspondence, January 31, 2013.
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Community College Bureau

Ralph J. Webb, Captain, Written Correspondence, February 2, 2011.
South Gate Education Center Library

Gabriella Lopez, Librarian, Written Correspondence, January 25, 2011.
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County

Adriana Raza, Customer Service Specialist, Written Correspondence, December 28, 2010.
South Gate Police Department

Darren Sullivan, Captain, E-mail Correspondence, February 1, 2011.
7.2 SOURCES CONSULTED

AES Due Diligence, Inc., Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update, South Gate Industrial Park-Parcel
1B, 2525 Firestone Boulevard, South Gate, Los Angeles County, California 90280, June 18, 2003.
Andersen Environmental, Environmental Sampling Report, September 20, 2010.
Andersen Environmental, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Performed at Firestone Parcel 1A, 2323
Firestone Boulevard, South Gate, California 90280, September 28, 2009.
Andersen Environmental, Soil Removal and Exploratory Excavation Report, April 18, 2011.
Berliner and Associates, East Los Angeles College Firestone Educational Center Master Plan 2013,
February 20, 2013.
taha 2012-090 7-1

California Air Resources Board (CARB), Air Quality Data Statistics, Top 4 Summary,
http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php, accessed January 7, 2013
California Air Resources Board (CARB), Ambient Air Quality Standards, and Attainment Status,
June 7, 2012
California Air Resources Board (CARB), California Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2000-2009, December 2011
California Air Resources Board (CARB), Climate Change Scoping Plan, December 2008.
California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone
Maps; http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/ap/ap_maps.htm accessed on December 10, 2012.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, South Gate Quadrangle, Official
Seismic Hazard Zones Map, March 25, 1999.
California Department of Conservation, Los Angeles County Tsunami Inundation Map, available at:
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geologic_hazards/Tsunami/Inundation_Maps/LosAngeles/Pag
es/LosAngeles.aspx, accessed January 2, 2013.
California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Community Planning Program website,
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/habcon/nccp/, accessed January 13, 2011.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), California Scenic Highway Program 1999, available at:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm, accessed January 18, 2011.
California Department of Water Resources – Southern Region, Watermaster Service in the Central Basin Los
Angeles County July 1, 2009-June 30, 2010, October 2010.
California Department of Water Resources, Coastal Plain of Los Angeles Groundwater Basin, Central
Subbasin, available at: http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/groundwater/bulletin_118/
basindescriptions/4-11.04.pdf, accessed January 31, 2011.
California Environmental Protection Agency, 2009-0009-DWQ Construction General Permit, available at:
http://www .waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/constpermits.shtml
California Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and
the Legislature, March 2006.
California Institute of Technology, Southern California Earthquake Data Center, Newport-Inglewood Fault
Zone, available at: http://www.data.scec.org/significant/newport.html, accessed December 10,
2012.
California Public Resources Code.
California State Water Resources Control Board, GeoTracker available at: http://geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov/,
CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3.
City of South Gate Municipal Code, Title 11 Comprehensive Zoning Code.
City of South Gate Municipal Code, website http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/southgate/, accessed

January 8, 2013.
City of South Gate, Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, October 26, 2004, amended May 13, 2008.
taha 2012-090 7-2

City of South Gate, SEMS Multi-hazard Functional Plan, March 1998.
Department of Toxic Substances Control, Voluntary Cleanup Agreement with LACCD, Docket No. HAS
VCA-12/13-055, executed January 22, 2013.
Earthcon, Groundwater Monitoring Report, September 2012.
East Los Angeles College, South Gate Student Enrollment 2007-2011, email from Ryan Cornner, Associate
Dean of Research, November 19, 2012
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), City of South Gate,
California, Los Angeles County, Community Panel Number 060163 0005 A,
July 6, 1998.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Memorandum. Information: Interim Guidance on Air Toxic
Analysis in NEPA Documents, September 30, 2009.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Noise Reduction Design Procedure, March 6, 2008.
Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006.
Firestone Education Center Master Plan, 2011.
Geokinetics, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Santa Fe-Firestone L.L.C., Administration Building,
2525 Firestone Boulevard, South Gate, California, April 9, 2002.
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Parking Generation Manual, 4th Edition, 2010.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007.
Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Ground Water Wells, available at:
http://dpwgis.co.la.ca.us/website/wells/viewer.asp, Accessed January 13, 2011.
Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Hydrology Manual (January 2006), available at:
http://ladpw.org /wrd/Publication/engineering/2006_Hydrology_Manual/
2006%20Hydrology%20Manual-Divided.pdf, accessed August 27, 2012.
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Technical Support
Document for the Derivation of Noncancer Reference Exposure Levels, 2008.
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment
Guidelines, 2003.
Office of Planning and Research, California, General Plan Guidelines, October 2003.
Parsons, Draft Underground Storage Tank Closure and Soil Investigation Report, Former Firestone Rubber
and Tire Facility 2525 East Firestone Boulevard, South Gate California, February 13, 2013.
RBF Consulting, South Gate 2035 General Plan Environmental Impact Report, 2009.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, 2013.
taha 2012-090 7-3

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), Facility Information Detail,
http://www.aqmd.gov/webappl/fim/prog/ emission.aspx?fac_id=11860, accessed February 4, 2013.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing
Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Emissions, December 2002.
Southern California Association of Governments, Southern California Compass Blueprint, Opportunity Area
Maps, City of Los Angeles-South Area http://www.compassblueprint.org/files/la-south.pdf,
SWCA Environmental Consultants, Cultural Resources Assessment for the East Los Angeles Satellite
Campus Master Plan, City of South Gate, Los Angeles County, California, May 2011.
SWCA Environmental Consultants, Cultural Resources Technical Report East Los Angeles College Satellite
Campus Project, City of South Gate, Los Angeles County, California, September 2009.
United States Census Bureau, QuickFacts, City of South Gate, available at:
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/ 06/0673080.html, accessed January 28, 2013
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Official Soil Series
Descriptions, available at: https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/H/HANFORD.html,
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Draft Endangerment Finding, 74 Fed. Reg. 18886, 18904,
April 24, 2009.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations,
Building Equipment and Home Appliances, PB 206717, 1971
Western Regional Climate Center, Historical Climate Information website, http://www.wrcc.dri.edu,

7.3 PREPARERS OF THIS EIR

Terry A. Hayes Associates Inc.
8522 National Boulevard, Suite 102
Culver City, CA 90232
CEO: Terry Hayes, AICP

Senior Planner: Kevin Ferrier
Senior Environmental
Scientist: Sam Silverman
Planner: Allison Studin
Assistant Planners: Celestine Do
Graphic Artist: Joel Wilts-Morrison
taha 2012-090 7-4

In association with:

Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
600 S. Lake Avenue, Suite 500
Pasadena, CA 91106
Contact: Alfred Ying, Senior Transportation Engineer
Clare Look-Jaeger, Principal
Cultural Resources
SWCA Environmental Consultants
625 Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 190
South Pasadena, CA 91030
Contact: Shannon Carmack, Built Environment Lead
taha 2012-090 7-5

VolumeI FirestoneSubsequentDEIR

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

VolumeI FirestoneSubsequentDEIR

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

FIRESTONE EDUCATION CENTER MASTER PLAN

SUBSEQUENT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

THE LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

TERRY A. HAYES ASSOCIATES INC

LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

TERRY A. HAYES ASSOCIATES INC.

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1-1

2.0 SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................... 2-1

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................ 3-1

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ................................................................................................... 4-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

5.0 ALTERNATIVES............................................................................................................................ 5-1

6.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................... 6-1

7.0 PERSONS AND SOURCES CONSULTED ................................................................................. 7-1

Appendix A Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Comments to NOP

taha 2012-090 iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

LIST OF FIGURES (cont.)

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

LIST OF TABLES (cont.)

taha 2012-090 vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

LIST OF TABLES (cont.)

taha 2012-090 viii

1.2 AUTHORIZATION AND FOCUS

1.3 PROJECT APPLICANT AND LEAD AGENCY

taha 2012-090 1-1

1.4 RESPONSIBLE AGENCY

1.5 INTENDED USE OF THIS SUBSEQUENT DRAFT EIR

1.6 SUBSEQUENT DRAFT EIR ORGANIZATION

taha 2012-090 1-2

1.7 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENTS

Comment letters should be sent to:

1.8 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY/ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED

taha 2012-090 1-3

2.2 SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

taha 2012-090 2-1

2.3 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS

taha 2012-090 2-2

NEW NEW NEW

2013 Firestone Education Center Master Plan FIGURE 2-1

2.4 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CAN

2.5 LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT OR NO IMPACT

2.6 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES

taha 2012-090 2-4

Alternative 1 – No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative is required by CEQA Guidelines

taha 2012-090 2-5

TABLE 2-1: SUMMARY OF PROJECT-RELATED IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

CULTURAL RESOURCES - CONSTRUCTION

taha 2012-090 2-6

TABLE 2-1: SUMMARY OF PROJECT-RELATED IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

taha 2012-090 2-7

TABLE 2-1: SUMMARY OF PROJECT-RELATED IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

taha 2012-090 2-8

TABLE 2-1: SUMMARY OF PROJECT-RELATED IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

taha 2012-090 2-9

TABLE 2-1: SUMMARY OF PROJECT-RELATED IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

TRANSPORTATION & TRAFFIC - OPERATIONS

taha 2012-090 2-10

TABLE 2-1: SUMMARY OF PROJECT-RELATED IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

taha 2012-090 2-11