GLENDALE UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT
HOOVER HIGH SCHOOL
PRACTICE FIELD LIGHTING
PROJECT
Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Draft
Prepared for
Glendale Unified School District
223 North Jackson Street
Glendale, California 92106
Prepared by
Atkins
12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430
Los Angeles, California 90025
June 2012
CONTENTS
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Legal Authority ............................................................................................................................................. 4
Public Review................................................................................................................................................ 8
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .................................................................................. 11
Determination................................................................................................................................. 11
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ........................................................................................... 12
Environmental Issues ..................................................................................................................... 13
I.
Aesthetics ....................................................................................................................................... 13
II.
Agriculture/Forestry Resources ................................................................................................. 32
III.
Air Quality ..................................................................................................................................... 32
IV.
Biological Resources..................................................................................................................... 38
V.
Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................................ 39
VI.
Geology/Soils ............................................................................................................................... 40
VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................................ 43
VIII. Hazards/Hazardous Materials .................................................................................................... 45
IX.
Hydrology/Water Quality ........................................................................................................... 50
X.
Land Use/Planning ...................................................................................................................... 53
XI.
Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................................ 55
XII. Noise............................................................................................................................................... 55
XIII. Population/Housing .................................................................................................................... 58
XIV. Public Services............................................................................................................................... 58
XV. Recreation ...................................................................................................................................... 59
XVI. Transportation/Traffic ................................................................................................................ 59
XVII. Utilities/Service Systems ............................................................................................................. 61
XVIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance .......................................................................................... 64
References....................................................................................................................................... 65
Appendices
Appendix A
Appendix B
Air Quality CalEEMod Modeling Data
Greenhouse Gas Emissions CalEEMod Modeling Data
Glendale Unified School District
Hoover High School Practice Field Lighting Project
iii
Contents
Figures
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5a
Figure 5b
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Project Site Location Map .................................................................................................................................. 2
Aerial View of Proposed Project Site and Vicinity ..................................................................................... 5
Proposed Project Site Plan ................................................................................................................................. 7
Typical Light Poles and Fixtures ...................................................................................................................... 9
Public Viewing Point Location Map .............................................................................................................14
Public Viewing Points in Project Vicinity ....................................................................................................15
Field Lighting Cross Section............................................................................................................................17
Illumination Summary .......................................................................................................................................21
Photometric Levels at Property Line—Field Lights ................................................................................23
Photometric Levels at Property Line—Track Lights...............................................................................25
Photometric Levels at Residential Uses on Olmstead Drive—Field Lights .....................................27
Photometric Levels at Residential Uses on Olmstead Drive—Track Lights....................................29
Tables
Table 1
Table 2
iv
Estimated Peak Daily Construction Emissions in Pounds per Day ....................................................35
Estimated Annual GHG Emissions .............................................................................................................44
Glendale Unified School District
Hoover High School Practice Field Lighting Project
INTRODUCTION
This checklist is to be completed for all projects that are subject to environmental review under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The information, analysis, and conclusions contained in
the checklist form the basis for deciding whether an environmental impact report (EIR), a negative
declaration (ND), or a mitigated negative declaration (MND) is to be prepared.
1.
Project title:
Hoover High School Practice Field Lighting Project
2.
Lead agency name and address:
Glendale Unified School District (GUSD)
223 North Jackson Street
Glendale, CA 91206
3.
Contact person and phone number:
Eva Rae Lueck, Chief Business & Financial Officer
818.241.3111
4.
Project location:
Practice Field on the Hoover High School (HHS) campus located at:
651 Glenwood Road
Glendale, CA 91202
(refer to Figure 1 [Project Site Location Map])
5.
Project sponsor’s name and address:
Glendale Unified School District
6.
General plan designation:
Public/ Semi-Public
7.
Zoning:
Low Density Residential (R1)
8.
Description of project (describe the whole action involved, including, but not limited to, later phases of the
project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation):
The proposed project site is the existing practice field area of the Hoover High School (HHS) campus
located at 651 Glenwood Road in the City of Glendale. The location of the project is shown in Figure 1.
The project site consists of an oval grass field and a dirt running track, confined by walls, fences, or
structures on all sides. The project site is bound by Olmstead Drive to the north, located at elevation
approximately 15 feet above the project site, the HHS baseball field to the east, the HHS locker rooms
Glendale Unified School District
Hoover High School Practice Field Lighting Project
1
PROJECT
LOCATION
PROJECT
LOCATION
100027457 | Hoover High School Field Lights Initial Study/Negative Declaration
0 mi
Source: Microsoft Streets and Trip, basemap (2011); Atkins (2012).
0 yds
200
400
600
2
800
4
6
SCALE IN YARDS
Figure 1
Project Site Location Map
Introduction
and gymnasiums to the south, and single-family residences to the west. Refer to Figure 2 (Aerial View of
Proposed Project Site and Vicinity) for a depiction of the existing practice field and surroundings.
The project site is used by HHS for physical education purposes; high school sports team practices;
soccer games, and track meets. The HHS sports teams that practice on the project site include soccer,
football, and track and field. The practice field is typically used by the school between the hours of
6:00 AM and dusk on school days and 4:00 PM to dusk during the summer. In addition to school use of
the practice field, outside sporting groups have been individually permitted by Glendale Unified School
District (GUSD) to use the practice field on weekends generally between the hours of 11:30 AM and
6:00 PM on Saturdays and 11:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Sundays. The absence of field lighting on the practice
field prevents school uses of the practice field from occurring in the evening hours. However, permitted
outside athletic groups occasionally use two, temporary, gas-powered field lights stored on the project
site, although the HHS has indicated that the field lighting has not been used for a considerable amount
of time. 1
The proposed project involves the installation and operation of four, 90-foot-tall light poles along the
perimeter of the running track and the development of a 1,500-square-foot (sf) one-story restroom and
storage facility. Figure 3 (Proposed Project Site Plan) illustrates the location of the proposed field lighting
fixtures and restroom/storage facility would be located on the project site. Each of the light poles would
be mounted with eight light fixtures utilizing 1,500-watt (1.56 kilowatts per hour [kW/h]) Musco Z lamps
and equipped with Light-Structure Green (LSG) visors. Figure 4 (Typical Light Poles and Fixtures)
illustrates the appearance of light poles and fixtures similar to those proposed for the proposed project.
The design of the proposed field lighting was selected in order to minimize spill light onto adjacent uses.
The 1,500 sf restroom and storage facility would include restroom, storage, electrical, and custodial uses.
The restroom would be developed with six sinks, seven toilets, three urinals, one drinking fountain, and
one mop sink.
The proposed project would not introduce new uses to the project site, rather the proposed project
would allow for the extended use of the project site by existing uses. Specifically, operation of field
lighting would allow for HHS sports team practices that currently conclude at dusk be extended
approximately 30 minutes to 2 hours, depending on the time of year, in order for practice to be properly
concluded and athletes to depart in a safe manner. Night time games for the HHS football and soccer
teams would not occur with implementation of the proposed project due to the absence of adequate
locker facilities and spectator seating for a visiting team. However, track meets that extend into the
evening hours may occur at the project site. Use of the proposed field lighting by outside sports group
would require a Facilities Use Permit issued by GUSD, similar to existing conditions that would establish
the allowable hours of use. Additionally, the practice field and track would continue to be available to
local residents for informal recreational uses (i.e., walking, jogging uses), similar to the existing
conditions. During these times, the District would illuminate the track for increased user safety, but the
practice field would not be lit. In all cases, it is anticipated that the field lights would not be in use
beyond 9:00 PM. The proposed restroom and storage facility would be used by the school and permitted
practice field users, and locked from general public use when the practice field. Additionally, the existing
1
Mark Rubio, Personal communication with Assistant Principle, Hoover High School (March 29, 2012).
Glendale Unified School District
Hoover High School Practice Field Lighting Project
3
Introduction
chain-link fence along Olmstead Street would be enhanced with an 8-foot-high green screen in order to
diffuse the field lighting from the neighbors located to the north across Olmstead Street.
9.
Surrounding land uses and setting (briefly describe the project’s surroundings):
Overall, the project site is surrounded by athletic facilities on the HHS campus, streets, and single-family
residential neighborhoods. Specific land uses surrounding the project site include the following:
■ North: A retaining wall, Olmstead Drive, and single-family residences, fronting Olmstead Drive.
■ East: Baseball diamond on the HHS campus, and single-family residences across School Street
(facing away from School Street)
■ South: Two Gymnasiums, lock rooms, bleachers, and other facilities on the HHS campus
■ West: Single-family residences (facing away from project site)
Refer to Figure 1 for a map of the project which illustrates the location of the project site in relation to
surrounding land uses and Figure 2 for an aerial view of the project site and the surrounding land uses.
10.
Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):
State of California
■ Division of the State Architect (Approval of Construction Drawings)
Regional Agencies
■ Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES permit; construction storm water
run-off permits)
LEGAL AUTHORITY
This ND for the proposed project has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(c) lists the following purposes of an Initial Study:
(1) Provide the lead agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare
an EIR or negative declaration;
(2) Enable an applicant or lead agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an
EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a negative declaration;
(3) Assist in the preparation of an EIR, if one is required …
(4) Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project;
(5) Provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a negative declaration that a
project will not have a significant effect on the environment;
(6) Eliminate unnecessary EIRs;
(7) Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project.
According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 (Decision to Prepare a Negative or Mitigated Negative
Declaration) of Article 6 (Negative Declaration Process):
A public agency shall prepare or have prepared a proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative
declaration for a project subject to CEQA when:
(a) The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record
before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, or
4
Glendale Unified School District
Hoover High School Practice Field Lighting Project
Olms
Dr.
Virgin
i
a Ave
.
tead
l St.
Scho
o
100027457 | Hoover High School Field Lights Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Hoover High School
Glen
wood
Mark Keppel
Elementary
School
Rd..
Eleanor J.
Toll Middle
School
Source: GoogleEarthPro (2012); Atkins (2012).
NOT TO SCALE
Figure 2
Aerial View of Proposed Project Site and Vicinity
S2
S1
100027457 | Hoover High School Field Lights Initial Study/Negative Declaration
S4
S3
LEGEND
New bathroom
S#
Standard light fixture
Source: Osborn (January 2012).
NOT TO SCALE
Figure 3
Proposed Project Site Plan
Introduction
(b) The initial study identifies potentially significant effects, but:
(1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before
a proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for public review
would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant
effects would occur, and
(2) There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the
project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.
The GUSD has prepared an IS to determine the level of environmental review necessary for the
proposed project. Based on the analysis in the IS, it has been determined that all project-related
environmental impacts are less than significant; a Negative Declaration (ND) will meet the requirements
of CEQA.
PUBLIC REVIEW
In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, a 30-day public review period for this ND
commenced on June 4, 2012, and will conclude on July 5, 2012. The Draft ND has specifically been
distributed to interested or involved public agencies, organizations, and private individuals for review. In
addition, the Draft ND is available for general public review at:
Glendale Unified School District
223 N. Jackson Street
Glendale, CA 91206
Hoover High School
651 Glenwood Road
Glendale, CA 91202
The GUSD will hold a Community Meeting to provide information regarding the proposed project on
Wednesday June 20, 2012, at 6:30 PM in the Parent Meeting Room—12101 on the Hoover High School
Campus, 651 Glenwood Road, Glendale, CA 91202.
During the public review period, the public will have an opportunity to provide written comments on the
information contained within this Draft ND. The public comments on the Draft ND and responses to
public comments will be incorporated into the Final ND. The GUSD Board of Education will use the
Final ND for all environmental decisions related to this project.
In reviewing the Draft ND, affected public agencies and interested members of the public should focus
on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing potential project impacts on the
environment, and ways in which the significant effects of the project are proposed to be avoided or
mitigated. Comments on the Draft ND should be submitted in writing prior to the end of the 30-day
public review period and must be postmarked by July 5, 2012. Please submit written comments to:
Eva Rae Lueck
Chief Business & Financial Officer
GUSD
223 N. Jackson Street
Glendale, CA 91206
818.241.3111
8
Glendale Unified School District
Hoover High School Practice Field Lighting Project
100027457 | Hoover High School Field Lights Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Source: MUSCO (2012).
Typical Light Poles and Fixtures
Figure 4
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Agriculture/Forestry Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology/Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards/Hazardous Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use/Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population/Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities/Service Systems
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “less than significant
unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed
in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because
all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant
to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures
that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
June 4, 2012
Signature
Date
Richard M. Sheehan
Superintendent
Name
Title
Glendale Unified School District
Hoover High School Practice Field Lighting Project
11
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question.
A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the
impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault
rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific
factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,
based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist
answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with
mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is
substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant
Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less-Than-Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less-than-significant level (mitigation measures from
Section XVII, “Earlier Analyses,” may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process,
an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the
earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or
outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead
agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s
environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question.
b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
12
Glendale Unified School District
Hoover High School Practice Field Lighting Project
SECTION I. Aesthetics
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
I.
AESTHETICS
Would the project:
(a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Discussion
Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would result in the installation of four 90-foot
light poles and the construction of one-story restroom/storage facility on the existing HHS practice field.
Project elements would be visible from Olmsted Avenue and the streets that intersect Olmstead Avenue
in front the project site. From a limited number of vantage points on Olmsted Avenue distant views of
the downtown Los Angeles skyline are available beyond the project site and the existing development on
the HHS campus. Additionally, from the bleachers adjacent to the project site looking north across the
project site, views of the Verdugo Mountains are available beyond the project site and single-family
homes. From most public viewing areas, including the four representative public viewing points shown
in Figure 5b (Public Viewing Points in Project Vicinity), the publically available views from Olmstead
Drive and School Street are dominated by the existing HHS Campus practice field and the school
buildings, while the Verdugo Mountains are prominently visible from the bleachers. A map identifying
the location of each public viewing point is provided as Figure 5a (Public Viewing Point Location Map)
The City of Glendale General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element do no designate these views
as scenic vistas. 2 Although project elements would be visible from the surrounding neighborhood,
implementation of the proposed project would not result in the obstruction or degradation of existing
scenic views. As shown in Figure 6 (Field Lighting Cross Section), while the light fixtures would be
highly visible from the project site, because of the proposed spacing and narrow width of the light poles,
views would continue to be available beyond the project site. Figure 6 also illustrates that views of from
residences would not be obstructed as a result of the proposed project, as the mass of the light poles
would not be substantial enough to obstruct views and the elevation of existing residences allows for
views beyond the Practice field. As the project site is an existing practice field on the HHS, field lighting
and a restroom/storage facility would not be visually incompatible with the existing character of the
project site which is currently visible when viewing of scenic resources. Based on the expansive nature of
existing views, the wide spacing and narrow width of the proposed light poles, and the project elements
visual compatibility with the existing character of the project site, scenic vistas would not be adversely
affected as a result of the proposed project, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
City of Glendale, City of Glendale General Plan, Open Space and Conservation Element,
http://www.ci.glendale.ca.us/planning/pdf_files/GeneralPlan/OpenSpace/1993%20Open%20Space%20and%20Cons
ervation%20Element%20with%20Amendments.pdf (accessed April 10, 2012)
2
Glendale Unified School District
Hoover High School Practice Field Lighting Project
13
1
2
Glendale
3
100027457 | Hoover High School Field Lights Initial Study/Negative Declaration
4
Source: Microsoft Streets & Trips, basemap (2011).
NOT TO SCALE
Figure 5a
Public Viewing Point Locations Map
100027457 | Hoover High School Field Lights Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Viewing Point 1
Viewing Point 2
Viewing Point 3
Viewing Point 4
Source: Atkins (2012).
Figure 5b
Public Viewing Points in Project Vicinity
100027457 | Hoover High School Field Lights Initial Study/Negative Declaration
SHOWING TWO 90’ TALL LIGHT POLES
HOOVER HIGH SCHOOL: SITE SECTION
Source: Musco (2012).
0" 10'-0" 20'-0"
40'-0"
NOT TO SCALE
Figure 6
Field Lighting Cross Section
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
(b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic
highway?
Discussion
No Impact. The proposed project site is the existing practice field located on the HHS campus. The
project site is not located within a designated scenic highway nor is it visible from a state designated
scenic highway. No scenic resources including historic structures, rock outcroppings and trees are located
on or in the vicinity of the project site. As such, implementation of the proposed project would not result
in the damage of a scenic resource within a state designated scenic highway, and no impact would occur.
(c)
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings?
Discussion
Less-Than-Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the
installation and operation of four 90-foot light poles and the construction of a 1,500 sf restroom/storage
facility on the existing HHS practice field. Field lighting fixtures, such as those proposed for the HHS
practice field are typical features for institutional facilities. The HHS campus is located within a
developed and built out area of the City of Glendale, and is appropriate for siting a lighted public sports
field use, and generally such a use would be visually compatible with the character of the area.
As proposed project elements are visually compatible with the existing visual character of the project site,
the visual character of the project site would not be degraded. From the perspective of the surrounding
area, the project site would maintain its existing character as a practice field on an existing high school
campus. As such, the proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the project site and surrounding area, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
(d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Discussion
Less-Than-Significant Impact. Existing night time lighting sources at the project site and surrounding
area consist of street lights, security lights, vehicle headlights, and interior building illumination. As
previously described, permanent field lighting would allow for HHS sports team practices that currently
conclude at dusk be extended approximately 30 minutes to 1 hour in order for practice to be properly
concluded and athletes to depart in a safe manner. Use of the proposed field lighting by outside sports
group would require a Facilities Use Permit issued by GUSD, similar to existing conditions that would
establish the allowable hours of use. Additionally, the practice field and track would continue to be
available to local residents for informal recreational uses (i.e., walking, jogging uses), similar to the
existing conditions. During these times, the District would illuminate the track for increased user safety,
18
Glendale Unified School District
Hoover High School Practice Field Lighting Project
SECTION I. Aesthetics
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
but the practice field would not be lit. In all cases, the field lights would not be in use beyond 9:00 PM.
The District would have full control over the amount of lighting to be utilized and outside user groups
would use preset lighting zones and would not have access to the lighting controls.
All proposed lighting is intended to adequately illuminate the playing field surface in a manner that
assures safety for players on the fields (i.e., consistent light levels without noticeable variation) and to
assure adequate lighting along the walkways to the proposed restroom facility. The proposed lighting is
compatible with general night lighting in the project vicinity. The proposed light poles would each be
equipped with five luminaires, all directed inward and downward onto the playing field and walkway
surfaces. Light fixtures and visors would be adjusted upon installation to shield the proposed luminaires
from view from off-site locations, to direct light inward and downward onto playing field and walkway
surfaces, and to limit sky glow and light overspill. Specifically, each light fixture would be outfitted with
Musco’s LSG 14-inch visor, shown in Figure 4, which covers more than a third of the surface lenses and
does not include any external holes or riveted parts that let light escape outside of the visor. The LSG
visor would direct light downward, reducing the spill light, sky glow and glare. The LSG visor utilizes the
best available visor technology. Sky glow from a fixture using the LSG visor would be similarly reduced
over that of the TLC visor. Based on the Design Element of Spill Light and Glare Control Technical
Bulletin prepared by Musco Sports Lighting LLC the height of the field lighting would also reduce spill
lighting and sky glow to the maximum extent feasible while still meeting District objectives, because the
increased height of the light poles allows for a steeper vertical aiming angle for light fixtures which
reduces spill light and glare. 3 Other LSG features of the revised field lights that control spill light and
glare in addition to the LSG 14-inch visor and the height of light poles include a reflector system, side
shift beam control, die-cast housing, and factory aiming of the fixtures.
For the purpose of this analysis only changes in off-site lighting levels are considered because uses on the
proposed project site are not considered light sensitive uses.
The following terms are used in this discussion:
■ Spill light: The light emitted from an installation that falls outside the boundaries of the property on
which the lighting system is installed.
■ Obtrusive light: Spill light that causes annoyance, discomfort, distraction, or a reduction in the ability
to see essential information such as traffic signals.
■ Glare: The discomfort or impairment of vision experienced when the image is excessively bright in
relation to the general surroundings.
■ Foot-candle (fc): The recognized international unit for the measure of light (luminance) falling onto a
surface
The following are examples of light levels, expressed in foot-candles:
■ Bright and sunny day: 3,000 fc
■ Professional baseball-field lighting: 300 fc
Musco Sports Lighting LLC, Technical Bulletin #TB0015: Design Elements of Spill Light and Glare Control (revised
January 20, 2011).
3
Glendale Unified School District
Hoover High School Practice Field Lighting Project
19
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
■
■
■
■
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Office: 50 to 75 fc
Residential lighting at night: 7 to 10 fc
Main road junction street lighting: 2.5 to 3.0 fc
Bright moonlight: 0.1 fc
Spill Light
The proposed light pole locations and the orientation of fixtures are intended to minimize potential light
spillover beyond the perimeter of the playing field. As shown in Figure 7 (Illumination Summary), the
average lighting would be 32.6 fc on the field, with a maximum brightness of 42 fc and a minimum
brightness of 17 fc. This would meet California Interscholastic Federation (CIF) standards for football
and soccer practices, and is considered adequate for the proposed uses of the field, including
instructional and organized youth recreational purposes.
As previously described, the proposed project site is bordered by single-family homes directly adjacent
and to the east; and single-family homes to the north across Olmstead Drive, located approximately
50 feet from the HHS Campus. The HHS practice field and track are located approximately 15 feet
below Olmstead Drive and is separated by a retaining wall along the northern perimeter of the track,
while the residential properties to the east are separated by a retaining wall and landscaping that extends
up to approximately 25 feet above the track. The site and the surrounding area currently have average
ambient nighttime light levels for a residential urbanized area. The City of Glendale has not established a
threshold for spill or obtrusive light. Therefore, the District has determined that if the proposed project
were to result in spill light above 2.5 fc on adjacent properties, a significant impact would occur. The
District has adopted the 2.5 fc as a threshold as these light levels are consistent with the surrounding
nighttime environment, where street lighting is the predominant source of lighting.
Figure 8 (Photometric Levels at Property Line—Field Lights) show that the practice field fully
illuminated results in a maximum light level at the eastern property line of 1.70 fc, which is below the
districts adopted threshold. Figure 9 (Photometric Levels at Property Line—Track Lights) shows that
with only the running track illuminated, the maximum light levels would be 1.48 fc. It is anticipated that
light levels would be further reduced by the existing landscaping that is above the roof line of the
adjacent properties.
Figure 10 (Photometric Levels at Residential Uses on Olmstead Drive—Field Lights) shows that the
maximum light levels at the residential uses to the north of the HHS practice field, across from Olmstead
Drive would be 2.24 fc. Figure 11 (Photometric Levels at Residential Uses on Olmstead Drive—Track
Lights) shows that the maximum light levels with only the running track illuminated would be 1.34 fc.
Additionally, the proposed project would involve the inclusion of an 8-foot-high green screen along the
northern fence adjacent Olmstead Drive, similar to that that exists on the western fence along School
Street. This green screen would serve to diffuse and filter the spill light, which would reduce the light
levels at the properties north of Olmstead Drive.
20
Glendale Unified School District
Hoover High School Practice Field Lighting Project
EQUIPMENT LIST FOR AREAS SHOWN
Pole
QTY
LOCATION
SIZE
4
4
S1-S4
90'
Luminaires
GRADE
ELEVATION
TOTALS
MOUNTING
HEIGHT
LAMP
TYPE
QTY /
POLE
THIS
GRID
OTHER
GRIDS
90'
1500W MZ
8
32
8
32
0
0
GUARANTEED PERFORMANCE
ILLUMINATION SUMMARY
Stadium
Hoover High School Football
Glendale,CA
Stadium
· Size: 360' x 196'
· Grid Spacing = 30.0' x 30.0'
· Values given at 3.0' above grade
205'
32
26
22
17
19
26
32
36
36
30
34
37
34
29
24
21
21
27
33
37
39
33
33
39
37
30
24
19
20
25
33
39
39
31
31
40
39
32
25
20
21
26
35
41
40
30
30
38
39
33
27
24
25
30
37
42
39
29
29
38
39
32
27
25
26
31
36
42
40
28
24
32
32
27
23
19
20
25
31
36
33
22
129'
33
129'
100027457 | Hoover High School Field Lights Initial Study/Negative Declaration
31
S4
169'
159'
S3
S2
119'
216'
119'
S1
· Luminaire Type:
Green Generation
· Rated Lamp Life:
5,000 hours
· Avg Lumens/Lamp:
134,000
CONSTANT ILLUMINATION
HORIZONTAL FOOTCANDLES
Entire Grid
No. of Target Points:
84
Average:
30.6
Maximum:
42
Minimum:
17
Avg/Min:
1.76
Max/Min:
2.42
UG (Adjacent Pts):
1.45
CV:
0.21
Average Lamp Tilt Factor:
Number of Luminaires:
Avg KW over 5,000:
Max KW:
1.000
32
50.05
54.4
Guaranteed Performance: The CONSTANT
ILLUMINATION described above is guaranteed for the rated
life of the lamp.
Field Measurements: Averages shall be +/-10% in
accordance with IESNA RP-6-01 and CIBSE LG4. Individual
measurements may vary from computer predictions.
Electrical System Requirements: Refer to Amperage
Draw Chart and/or the "Musco Control System Summary"
for electrical sizing.
Installation Requirements: Results assume +/- 3%
nominal voltage at line side of the ballast and structures
located within 3 feet (1m) of design locations.
By: Alex Nielsen
File #: 156820r
Date: 29-Mar-12
Pole location(s)
dimensions are relative Not to be reproduced in whole or part without the written
to 0,0 reference point(s)
consent of Musco Lighting. ©1981, 2012 Musco Lighting
SCALE IN FEET 1 : 80
Source: Musco (2012).
0'
80'
160'
Print Date (29/Mar/2012) & Time (14:51)
Figure 7
Illumination Summary
EQUIPMENT LIST FOR AREAS SHOWN
Pole
Luminaires
QTY
LOCATION
SIZE
4
4
S1-S4
90'
GRADE
ELEVATION
TOTALS
MOUNTING
HEIGHT
LAMP
TYPE
QTY /
POLE
THIS
GRID
OTHER
GRIDS
90'
1500W MZ
8
32
8
32
0
0
GUARANTEED PERFORMANCE
ILLUMINATION SUMMARY
Property Spill
Hoover High School Football
Glendale,CA
Property Spill
· Grid Spacing = 30.0'
· Values given at 3.0' above grade
0.26
S12.33
0.79
6.78
12.70 13.48 13.26 10.36 7.10
5.43
5.37
6.89
10.23 13.94 14.39 13.26 6.83
0.37
0.93
S2
1.98
0.80
0.41
· Luminaire Type:
Green Generation
· Rated Lamp Life:
5,000 hours
· Avg Lumens/Lamp:
134,000
CONSTANT ILLUMINATION
HORIZONTAL FOOTCANDLES
1.13
No. of Target Points:
Average:
Maximum:
Minimum:
1.57
1.70
1.39
Entire Grid
30
5.201
14.39
0.20
Average Lamp Tilt Factor:
Number of Luminaires:
Avg KW over 5,000:
Max KW:
1.16
0.59
1.000
32
50.05
54.4
100027457 | Hoover High School Field Lights Initial Study/Negative Declaration
0.40
0.20
S4
S3
Guaranteed Performance: The CONSTANT
ILLUMINATION described above is guaranteed for the rated
life of the lamp.
Field Measurements: Averages shall be +/-10% in
accordance with IESNA RP-6-01 and CIBSE LG4. Individual
measurements may vary from computer predictions.
Electrical System Requirements: Refer to Amperage
Draw Chart and/or the "Musco Control System Summary"
for electrical sizing.
Installation Requirements: Results assume +/- 3%
nominal voltage at line side of the ballast and structures
located within 3 feet (1m) of design locations.
By: Alex Nielsen
File #: 156820r
Date: 29-Mar-12
Pole location(s)
dimensions are relative Not to be reproduced in whole or part without the written
to 0,0 reference point(s)
consent of Musco Lighting. ©1981, 2012 Musco Lighting
SCALE IN FEET 1 : 150
Source: Musco (2012).
0'
150'
300'
Print Date (29/Mar/2012) & Time (14:51)
Figure 8
Photometric Levels at Property Line—Field Lights
EQUIPMENT LIST FOR AREAS SHOWN
Pole
Luminaires
QTY
LOCATION
SIZE
4
4
S1-S4
90'
GRADE
ELEVATION
TOTALS
MOUNTING
HEIGHT
LAMP
TYPE
QTY /
POLE
THIS
GRID
OTHER
GRIDS
90'
1500W MZ
8
32
8
32
0
0
GUARANTEED PERFORMANCE
ILLUMINATION SUMMARY
Property Spill
Hoover High School Football
Glendale,CA
Property Spill
· Grid Spacing = 30.0'
· Values given at 3.0' above grade
0.26
S12.33
0.79
6.78
12.70 13.48 13.26 10.36 7.10
5.43
5.37
6.89
10.23 13.94 14.39 13.26 6.83
0.37
0.93
S2
1.98
0.80
0.41
· Luminaire Type:
Green Generation
· Rated Lamp Life:
5,000 hours
· Avg Lumens/Lamp:
134,000
CONSTANT ILLUMINATION
HORIZONTAL FOOTCANDLES
1.13
No. of Target Points:
Average:
Maximum:
Minimum:
1.57
1.70
1.39
Entire Grid
30
5.201
14.39
0.20
Average Lamp Tilt Factor:
Number of Luminaires:
Avg KW over 5,000:
Max KW:
1.16
0.59
1.000
32
50.05
54.4
100027457 | Hoover High School Field Lights Initial Study/Negative Declaration
0.40
0.20
S4
S3
Guaranteed Performance: The CONSTANT
ILLUMINATION described above is guaranteed for the rated
life of the lamp.
Field Measurements: Averages shall be +/-10% in
accordance with IESNA RP-6-01 and CIBSE LG4. Individual
measurements may vary from computer predictions.
Electrical System Requirements: Refer to Amperage
Draw Chart and/or the "Musco Control System Summary"
for electrical sizing.
Installation Requirements: Results assume +/- 3%
nominal voltage at line side of the ballast and structures
located within 3 feet (1m) of design locations.
By: Alex Nielsen
File #: 156820r
SCALE IN FEET 1 : 150
Source: Musco (2012).
0'
150'
Date: 29-Mar-12
Pole location(s)
dimensions are relative Not to be reproduced in whole or part without the written
to 0,0 reference point(s)
consent of Musco Lighting. ©1981, 2012 Musco Lighting
300'
Print Date (29/Mar/2012) & Time (14:51)
Figure 9
Photometric Levels at Property Line—Track Lights
EQUIPMENT LIST FOR AREAS SHOWN
Pole
Luminaires
QTY
LOCATION
SIZE
4
4
S1-S4
90'
GRADE
ELEVATION
TOTALS
MOUNTING
HEIGHT
LAMP
TYPE
QTY /
POLE
THIS
GRID
OTHER
GRIDS
90'
1500W MZ
8
32
8
32
0
0
GUARANTEED PERFORMANCE
ILLUMINATION SUMMARY
Olmsted Drive
Hoover High School Football
Glendale,CA
Olmsted Drive
· Grid Spacing = 30.0'
· Values given at 0.0' above grade
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.12
0.49
1.06
2.03
2.14
1.82
1.45
1.27
1.26
1.35
1.69
2.09
2.24
1.58
0.69
S1
0.30
S2
0.07
0.08
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
· Luminaire Type:
Green Generation
· Rated Lamp Life:
5,000 hours
· Avg Lumens/Lamp:
134,000
CONSTANT ILLUMINATION
HORIZONTAL FOOTCANDLES
No. of Target Points:
Average:
Maximum:
Minimum:
Entire Grid
32
0.692
2.24
0.01
100027457 | Hoover High School Field Lights Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Average Lamp Tilt Factor:
Number of Luminaires:
Avg KW over 5,000:
Max KW:
S4
S3
1.000
32
50.05
54.4
Guaranteed Performance: The CONSTANT
ILLUMINATION described above is guaranteed for the rated
life of the lamp.
Field Measurements: Averages shall be +/-10% in
accordance with IESNA RP-6-01 and CIBSE LG4. Individual
measurements may vary from computer predictions.
Electrical System Requirements: Refer to Amperage
Draw Chart and/or the "Musco Control System Summary"
for electrical sizing.
Installation Requirements: Results assume +/- 3%
nominal voltage at line side of the ballast and structures
located within 3 feet (1m) of design locations.
By: Shawn Moyer
File #: 156820r1
Date: 27-Apr-12
Pole location(s)
dimensions are relative Not to be reproduced in whole or part without the written
to 0,0 reference point(s)
consent of Musco Lighting. ©1981, 2012 Musco Lighting
SCALE IN FEET 1 : 150
Source: Musco (2012).
0'
150'
300'
Print Date (27/Apr/2012) & Time (12:26)
Figure 10
Photometric Levels at Residential Uses on Olmstead Drive—Field Lights
EQUIPMENT LIST FOR AREAS SHOWN
Pole
Luminaires
QTY
LOCATION
SIZE
4
4
S1-S4
90'
GRADE
ELEVATION
TOTALS
MOUNTING
HEIGHT
LAMP
TYPE
QTY /
POLE
THIS
GRID
OTHER
GRIDS
90'
1500W MZ
8
32
3
12
5
20
GUARANTEED PERFORMANCE
ILLUMINATION SUMMARY
Olmsted Drive - Track Only
Hoover High School Football
Glendale,CA
Olmsted Drive - Track Only
· Grid Spacing = 30.0'
· Values given at 0.0' above grade
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.08
0.28
0.68
1.32
1.16
0.92
0.74
0.69
0.69
0.72
0.86
1.10
1.34
1.06
0.39
S1
0.19
S2
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
· Luminaire Type:
Green Generation
· Rated Lamp Life:
5,000 hours
· Avg Lumens/Lamp:
134,000
CONSTANT ILLUMINATION
HORIZONTAL FOOTCANDLES
No. of Target Points:
Average:
Maximum:
Minimum:
Entire Grid
32
0.392
1.34
0.00
100027457 | Hoover High School Field Lights Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Average Lamp Tilt Factor:
Number of Luminaires:
Avg KW over 5,000:
Max KW:
S4
S3
1.000
12
18.77
20.4
Guaranteed Performance: The CONSTANT
ILLUMINATION described above is guaranteed for the rated
life of the lamp.
Field Measurements: Averages shall be +/-10% in
accordance with IESNA RP-6-01 and CIBSE LG4. Individual
measurements may vary from computer predictions.
Electrical System Requirements: Refer to Amperage
Draw Chart and/or the "Musco Control System Summary"
for electrical sizing.
Installation Requirements: Results assume +/- 3%
nominal voltage at line side of the ballast and structures
located within 3 feet (1m) of design locations.
By: Shawn Moyer
File #: 156820r1
Date: 27-Apr-12
Pole location(s)
dimensions are relative Not to be reproduced in whole or part without the written
to 0,0 reference point(s)
consent of Musco Lighting. ©1981, 2012 Musco Lighting
SCALE IN FEET 1 : 150
Source: Musco (2012).
0'
150'
300'
Print Date (27/Apr/2012) & Time (12:26)
Figure 11
Photometric Levels at Residential Uses on Olmstead Drive—Track Lights
SECTION I. Aesthetics
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
As show in Figure 8 through Figure 11, implementation of the proposed project would not result in spill
lighting on residential property that would exceed 2.5 fc. The nighttime lighting levels at off-site locations
from the illuminated practice field would be substantially similar to the existing conditions in the area. As
such, the field lighting would be compatible with the area surrounding the proposed project site and
would not pose a safety hazard or create substantial spill light or obtrusive light. Therefore, spill lighting
from the proposed project will result in a less-than-significant lighting impact. To further reduce
potential impacts, existing landscaping and the provision of an 8-foot-high green screen along the
northern fence will help to shield nearby residents from the practice field lighting.
Glare
Glare refers to the sensation we experience when looking into an excessively bright light source that
causes a reduction in the ability to see, or causes discomfort to the eye. Glare is commonly experienced
when driving into a sunrise or sunset, or when approaching an oncoming vehicle using their high beam
headlights at night. Glare, and the perception of glare, varies on a number of factors including: source
brightness, the contrast between the brightness of the glare source and the brightness of the surrounding
environment, and size/location of the glare source. Glare created by sports-lighting systems can be
measured for impairment of view. A typical example of glare effects is the car headlight. When viewed
directly in front of a vehicle with the headlights on full beam, vision is impaired, resulting in disabling
glare. However, when viewed from the side, the same headlights would not impair vision. A significant
lighting impact would occur if glare created by the proposed project impairs vision.
As previously discussed, lighting fixtures located on the practice field will be directed downward, onto
the HHS practice field, and away from sensitive receptors. While the 90-foot-high light fixtures would be
visible to nearby residential uses, the light source would not be directed onto these residential uses, and
as discussed previously the light levels would be within the range of typical suburban residential
nighttime light levels.
Additionally, each light fixture would be outfitted with Musco’s LSG 14-inch visor that will further direct
the lighting downward, reducing the potential for glare outside of the practice field. Furthermore, the
proposed light fixtures would feature Green Generation technology, which is known to reduce glare
significantly, and a Control Link system, which allows for monitoring and remote on/off scheduling,
ensuring that lights are on only when needed. Following installation of the lights, factory field service
technicians would adjust the aiming alignment of the lighting fixtures to reduce glare. Additionally,
existing landscaping and the provision of an 8-foot-high green screen along the northern fence will help
to shield nearby residents from the practice field lighting. Therefore, the proposed project would result in
a less-than-significant glare impact.
Glendale Unified School District
Hoover High School Practice Field Lighting Project
31
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
II.
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
AGRICULTURE/FORESTRY RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies
may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.
In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the
Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols
adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
(a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
(b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or with a Williamson
Act contract?
(c)
Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland
zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code
Section 51104(g))?
(d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to
nonforest use?
(e)
Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their
location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to
nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to nonforest use?
Discussion
No Impact. The proposed project site is currently developed as the existing practice field on the HHS
campus. No farmland, forest land, timberland, or other agricultural uses occur on the project site or
surrounding area. Additionally, the project site’s zoning of Low Density Residential does not allow for
agricultural uses and the project site is not designated Prime, Unique, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance. As the proposed project would have no impact on Agricultural Resources on the project
site or surrounding area.
III.
AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
(a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality
plan?
Discussion
No Impact. The proposed project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) and is under
the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which is required,
32
Glendale Unified School District
Hoover High School Practice Field Lighting Project
SECTION III. Air Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
pursuant to the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the
Basin is in nonattainment. Strategies to achieve these reductions in emissions are developed in the Air
Quality Management Plan (AQMP) prepared by SCAQMD for the Basin. The AQMP is based on
regional population projections included in General Plans for those communities located within the
Basin, including the City of Glendale. Population growth is typically associated with the construction of
residential units or large employment centers. A project would be inconsistent with the AQMP if growth
estimates resulting from the project would exceed growth projections for the area or region. The
proposed project does not include any residential development or housing and would not result in
significant population or employment growth. For these reasons, the proposed project would not
produce local or regional growth in excess of the 2007 AQMP estimates, which are based on SCAG
projections.
The proposed project involves the installation of practice field lighting and restroom facilities on the
HHS Campus, and does not propose any land use changes, nor would it result in a land use that would
create operational emissions. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan,
which would make it consistent with the AQMP, and no impact would occur.
(b)
Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
(c)
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including
releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
Discussion
Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would involve the installation of four permanent
light poles and 1,500 sf restroom facilities at the HHS practice field, which would include construction
activities. Installation and construction would begin in summer of 2012. Construction of the restroom
facilities and installation of the light fixtures are anticipated to occur concurrently. Based upon on the
construction information provided by the GUSD, grading of the area for the restroom construction
would occur first and last approximately 20 day, followed by building construction that would last for 20
days. The final stage in the restroom facility construction would be architectural coating/painting, which
would occur over a period of 15 day. While the restroom facilities are being constructed the light fixtures
would be installed. The first activity would be trenching for installation of electrical conduits would last
approximately 11 days. Backfill of the electrical conduit trenches would occur next and last
approximately 5 days, while installation of the lighting poles, including pouring of concrete for the light
fixture bases would last another 5 days.
Emissions for the construction activities were calculated using the CalEEMod, a computer program
developed by the SCAQMD that calculates emissions for construction and operation of development
projects. The CalEEMod calculation sheets are included as Appendix A to this ND. For on-road
vehicular emissions, CalEEMod utilizes the EMFAC2007 emission rates that have been developed by the
Glendale Unified School District
Hoover High School Practice Field Lighting Project
33
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
California Air Resources Board (California ARB). Equipment for each phase of construction activity is
based upon information provided by GUSD.
The majority of construction emissions are generated by construction equipment and from dust resulting
from construction activity. The SCAQMD has developed the CEQA Air Quality Handbook that
establishes suggested significance thresholds based on the volume of pollution emitted. According to the
Handbook, any project in the Basin with daily emissions that exceed any of the following thresholds
should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact:
Construction
■
■
■
■
■
■
75 pounds per day (lbs/day) of ROG (reactive organic gases)
100 lbs/day of NOX (oxides of nitrogen)
550 lbs/day of CO (carbon monoxide)
150 lbs/day of SOX (oxides of sulfur)
150 lbs/day of PM10 (respirable 10-micron-diameter particulate matter)
55 lbs/day of PM2.5 (respirable 2.5-micron-diameter particulate matter)
Operation
■
■
■
■
■
■
55 pounds per day (lbs/day) of ROG (reactive organic gases)
55 lbs/day of NOX (oxides of nitrogen)
550 lbs/day of CO (carbon monoxide)
150 lbs/day of SOX (oxides of sulfur)
150 lbs/day of PM10 (respirable 10-micron-diameter particulate matter)
55 lbs/day of PM2.5 (respirable 2.5-micron-diameter particulate matter)
Construction Emissions
The regional air pollutant emissions resulting from construction of the new classroom building were
calculated and the results are presented in Table 1 (Estimated Peak Daily Construction Emissions in
Pounds per Day). The CalEEMod worksheets that show the specific data used to calculate the
construction emissions are included as Appendix A to this ND. As shown in Table 1, construction
emissions would be below the Regional Significance Thresholds established by the SCAQMD during all
construction phases. In general, the primary source of CO and NOX emissions would be from
construction equipment and off-site vehicle trips, while the primary source of PM10 and PM2.5 emissions
would be from ground disturbance. It should be noted that compliance with SCAQMD’s Rule 403
results in the inclusion of watering of the disturbed soil three times daily in the CalEEMod model.
Without daily watering, the PM10 and PM2.5emissions generation would be higher, but still below the
SCAQMD threshold of significance.
34
Glendale Unified School District
Hoover High School Practice Field Lighting Project
SECTION III. Air Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Table 1
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Estimated Peak Daily Construction Emissions in Pounds per Day
Peak Day Emissions in Pounds per Day
Emission Source
ROG
NOX
CO
SOX
PM10
PM2.5
On Site
1.99
14.01
9.38
0.02
1.17
1.01
Off Site
0.10
0.62
0.94
0.00
0.60
0.03
Maximum Daily Emissions
2.09
14.63
10.32
0.02
1.77
1.04
SCAQMD Threshold
75
100
550
150
150
55
Exceed Threshold?
No
No
No
No
No
No
On Site
3.27
20.63
12.17
0.02
1.36
1.36
Off Site
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Maximum Daily Emissions
3.27
20.63
12.17
0.02
1.36
1.36
SCAQMD Threshold
75
100
550
150
150
55
Exceed Threshold?
No
No
No
No
No
No
On Site
2.84
3.16
1.96
0.00
0.29
0.29
Off Site
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Maximum Daily Emissions
2.84
3.16
1.96
0.00
0.29
0.29
SCAQMD Threshold
75
100
550
150
150
55
Exceed Threshold?
No
No
No
No
No
No
On Site
0.94
7.33
5.18
0.01
0.42
0.42
Off Site
0.02
0.02
0.24
0.00
0.05
0.00
Maximum Daily Emissions
0.96
7.35
5.42
0.01
0.47
0.42
SCAQMD Threshold
75
100
550
150
150
55
Exceed Threshold?
No
No
No
No
No
No
On Site
1.06
7.60
4.43
0.01
0.54
0.54
Off Site
0.07
0.07
0.81
0.00
0.16
0.01
Maximum Daily Emissions
1.13
7.67
5.24
0.01
0.70
0.55
SCAQMD Threshold
75
100
550
150
150
55
Exceed Threshold?
No
No
No
No
No
No
Grading (for restroom facilities)
Building (for restroom facilities)
Architectural Coating (for restroom facilities)
Trenching(concurrent with grading activities)
Paving (concurrent with building activities)
Glendale Unified School District
Hoover High School Practice Field Lighting Project
35
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Table 1
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Estimated Peak Daily Construction Emissions in Pounds per Day
Peak Day Emissions in Pounds per Day
Emission Source
ROG
NOX
CO
SOX
PM10
PM2.5
Grading
2.09
14.63
10.32
0.02
1.77
1.04
Trenching
0.96
7.35
5.42
0.01
0.47
0.42
Maximum Daily Emissions
3.05
21.98
15.74
0.03
2.24
1.46
SCAQMD Threshold
75
100
550
150
150
55
Exceed Threshold?
No
No
No
No
No
No
Building
3.27
20.63
12.17
0.02
1.36
1.36
Paving
1.13
7.67
5.24
0.01
0.70
0.55
Maximum Daily Emissions
4.4
28.3
17.41
0.03
2.06
1.91
SCAQMD Threshold
75
100
550
150
150
55
Exceed Threshold?
No
No
No
No
No
No
Grading and Trenching Activities
Building and Paving Activities
SOURCE:
Atkins (2012) (CalEEMod outputs available as Appendix A to this ND).
Assumes compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, including watering the construction site three times daily.
Operational Emissions
Operational emissions are defined as emissions of criteria pollutants generated by both area and mobile
sources Examples of area sources include residential and commercial water heaters, painting operations,
portable generators, lawn mowers, agricultural fields, landfills, and consumer products, such as barbeque
lighter fluid and hairspray, the area wide use of which contributes to regional air pollution. Mobile
sources refer to emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions, and are
classified as either on-road or off-road. On-road sources are those that are legally operated on roadways
and highways. Off-road sources include aircraft, ships, trains, racecars, and construction vehicles.
The proposed project would not result in new vehicle trips. Rather, implementation of the proposed
project would shift existing traffic that occurs for HHS athletic practices, such as football and soccer
teams from an afternoon start time to an evening start time. Similarly, the proposed project would not
include the development of area source emitters, as the new field lights would be powered by electricity
generated and purchased from Southern California Edison and no new emissions would occur at the
Campus. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant operational emissions and no
SCAQMD threshold would be exceeded.
The proposed project would not exceed any regional thresholds, individually or cumulatively during
operation or construction of the field lighting. During construction, the Districts construction contractor
would be required to comply with SCAQMD’s Rule 403 to suppress fugitive dust. As discussed in this
ND, compliance would include watering the construction site three times daily. With implementation of
these BMPs, construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for regional impacts.
36
Glendale Unified School District
Hoover High School Practice Field Lighting Project
SECTION III. Air Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Similarly, operation of the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold for operation.
Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed project would not exceed established thresholds
with respect to violation of air quality standards or contribution to existing or projected air quality
violation. This impact would be less than significant.
(d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Discussion
Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to a
substantial amount of pollutant concentrations during construction activities. Sensitive receptors are land
uses such as residential, schools, daycare centers, and recreational facilities that are more susceptible to
the effects of air pollution than the population at large. The proposed project would require minor and
temporary pollutant emissions from construction activities. Minimal earth disturbing activities would
occur and use of diesel equipment associated with construction of the proposed project would be
limited. In addition, operation of the proposed project would not increase vehicle trips per day, and,
therefore, would not result in a significant increase in operational emission. The proposed project site is a
pedestrian enhancement project that would not increase student population or result in an identifiable
net increase in stationary emissions (electricity and natural gas). Since construction and operation of the
proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of criteria pollutants,
this impact would be less than significant.
(e)
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people?
Discussion
Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would require minor and temporary
construction activities and would include minimal construction activities that may generate objectionable
odors. These odors would be temporary in nature and would be confined to the immediate vicinity of the
proposed project site. Therefore, these odors would not affect a substantial number of people. In
addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 with regard to
odors, and as such, this impact would be considered less than significant.
Glendale Unified School District
Hoover High School Practice Field Lighting Project
37
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
IV.
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
(a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
(b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
(c)
Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands
as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Discussion
No Impact. The project site is currently developed with a grass field and dirt track. Vegetation on the
project site is limited to the grass field. No trees or water sources occur on the project site. As a result, no
suitable habitat for candidate, sensitive species, or special-status species exists on the project site, nor
does riparian habitat, other sensitive natural communities, or wetlands exist on the project site. In the
absence of suitable habitat, no sensitive species occur on the project site. Additionally, according to the
City’s General Open Space and Conservation Element, the project site is not located within a biological
resource area, significant ecological area, or a natural community. Therefore, implementation of the
proposed project which involves the installation of four 90-foot-tall light poles and the construction of a
1,500 sf restroom on the HHS practice field would not result in substantial adverse effect on protected
species, riparian habitat, other sensitive natural communities, or wetlands, and no impact would occur.
(d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
Discussion
Less-Than-Significant Impact. The project site is currently developed as with a grass field and a dirt
track. Vegetation on the project is limited to the grass field and no trees are located on the project.
Surrounding development includes the residences to the north and east, and the remainder of the HHS
campus. As previously described, the project site is confined by walls, fences, and structures and is
located roughly 15 feet below the elevation of Olmstead Avenue. Due to the developed nature of the
project site and surrounding area, absence of trees, and the confinement of the project site substantial
wildlife movement does not currently occur though the proposed project site. Therefore, implementation
of the proposed project which involves the installation of four 90-foot-tall light poles and the
38
Glendale Unified School District
Hoover High School Practice Field Lighting Project
SECTION V. Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
construction of a 1,500 sf restroom on the HHS practice field would not substantially interfere with
migratory movement, and this impact would be less than significant.
(e)
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
(f)
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Discussion
No Impact. No biological resources protected by any local policies or ordinances occur on the project
site including trees or protected species, as discussed in Section IV(a). No adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan is applicable to the proposed project site. As such, implementation of the proposed
project would not conflict with a local policy or ordinance protecting biological resources or a Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan, and no impact would occur.
V.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
(a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?
Discussion
No Impact. The project site is currently developed with a grass field, dirt track, and three relocatable
classroom buildings. No historical resources occur on the project site. As such, no impact to historical
resources would occur as a result of the proposed project.
(b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
(c)
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature?
(d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
Discussion
Less-Than-Significant Impact. The project site is currently developed as with a grass field and a dirt
track. According to the City’s General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element, no archeological
sites have been identified in the City of Glendale and paleontological resources are general found within
sedimentary rock formations which underlay the project site. Implementation of the proposed project
would result in the installation of four light poles and the construction of a 1,500 sf restroom/storage
Glendale Unified School District
Hoover High School Practice Field Lighting Project
39
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
facilities neither of which would require extensive ground disturbance. Because extensive ground moving
activities would not be required, the area of ground disturbance would be minimal, and ground
disturbance would take place in areas that have been previously disturbed, the likelihood of encountering
cultural resources is unlikely. If archaeological resources are discovered during construction, the GUSD
and its construction contractor would be required to satisfy the requirements of Public Resources Code
(PRC) Section 21083.2. Similarly, human burials, in addition to being potential archaeological resources,
have specific provisions for treatment in PRC Section 5097. Disturbing human remains would destroy
the resources and could potentially violate the health code. The Health and Safety Code (Sections 7050.5,
7051, and 7054) has specific provisions for the protection of human burial remains. Existing regulations
address the illegality of interfering with human burial remains, protect them from disturbance, vandalism,
or destruction, and establish procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are
discovered. PRC Section 5097.98 also addresses the disposition of Native American burials, protects
such remains, and establishes the Native American Heritage Commission to resolve any related disputes.
As such, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on archeological resources,
paleontological resources, and human remains.
VI.
GEOLOGY/SOILS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
(a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
(i)
Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued
by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42?
Discussion
No Impact. The proposed project site is not listed within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. 4 No
active faults are known to transect the site and, therefore, the site is not expected to be adversely affected
by surface rupturing. No fault rupture is delineated by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map,
and no hazard is anticipated at the proposed project site. Therefore, no impact would occur.
California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey—Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (January
2010), http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/download/ap/pdf/BURBANK.PDF (accessed April 3, 2012)
4
40
Glendale Unified School District
Hoover High School Practice Field Lighting Project
SECTION VI. Geology/Soils
(ii)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Strong seismic groundshaking?
Discussion
Less-Than-Significant Impact. As with all development in Southern California, the proposed project
site is located in a seismically active region and may be subject to the effects of ground shaking. Strong
groundshaking occurs when energy is released during an earthquake and varies dependent on the
distance between the site and the earthquake, the magnitude of the earthquake, and the geologic
conditions underlying and surrounding the site. The proposed project site could be expected to
experience strong groundshaking from numerous local and regional faults. Further, the proposed project
would be required to comply with the provisions of the 2010 California Building Code (CBC) and the
requirements of the Division of the State Architect (DSA) that includes stringent seismic standards
required by the Field Act. Conformance with the seismic safety provisions of the most current
requirements of the CBC and the DSA would ensure adequate mitigation of the risks associated with
faulting within, or proximate to, the proposed project site. Impacts of the proposed project would be
less than significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
(iii)
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Discussion
Less-Than-Significant Impact. Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which cohesionless, saturated, finegrained sand and sandy silt soils lose shear strength and fail due to groundshaking. 5 Liquefaction is
defined as the transformation of granular material from a solid state into a liquefied state as a
consequence of increased pore-water pressure. 6 According to the City of Glendale General Plan Safety
Element, the proposed project site is not located within a liquefaction hazard zone. 7 A full geotechnical
investigation and report, which is required by California Education Codes 17212 and 17212.5 and by the
DSA, will be completed during project design. 8 Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur
as a result of seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction.
California Department of Conservation, Seismic Hazard Factsheet (2008).
California Department of Conservation, Seismic Hazard Factsheet (2008).
7 City of Glendale, City of Glendale General Plan, Safety Element,
http://www.ci.glendale.ca.us/planning/pdf_files/safety_element/safety_element.pdf (accessed April 11, 2012)
8 California Education Codes 17212 and 17212.5
5
6
Glendale Unified School District
Hoover High School Practice Field Lighting Project
41
Environmental Issues
(i)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Landslides?
(b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
No Impact. Significant landslides and erosion typically occur on steep slopes where stormwater and
high winds can carry topsoil down hillsides. The proposed project is located in a relatively level area, and
there are no steep slopes where stormwater and high winds can carry topsoil down hillsides. Additionally,
the project site is entirely developed with the existing HHS practice field and contains no exposed soils
that could be subject to soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Therefore, because construction of the proposed
project is in a relatively level area, no impact would occur.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
(c)
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction,
or collapse?
Discussion
Less-Than-Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in substantial
soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Major erosion typically occurs on long, steep slopes where stormwater
and/or high winds can carry topsoil down hillsides. The proposed project is not located on a slope, and
there are no slopes located near the project site. Construction of the proposed project would not result in
any major ground surface disruptions that could create the potential for erosion. The proposed project
would involve minimal construction activities and would not involve substantial earth-moving activities.
Compliance with design, grading and structural recommendations included in the project-specific
geotechnical and soils report per DSA requirement, would ensure that potential impacts of the proposed
project on soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be less than significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
(d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 20-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
Discussion
Less-Than-Significant Impact. The DSA requires an updated, detailed, and project-specific
geotechnical and soils study, prepared by a registered geologist and soils engineer, as part of the
construction document package. This project-specific geotechnical study would include
recommendations for foundations and land development (grading) to mitigate for the effects of strong
42
Glendale Unified School District
Hoover High School Practice Field Lighting Project
SECTION VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
ground motion on any of the new structures constructed as part of the proposed project. Therefore, the
potential impacts of expansive soils at the proposed project site would be less than significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
(e)
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are
not available for the disposal of wastewater?
Discussion
No Impact. The proposed project would not produce wastewater that requires support of septic tanks
or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore the proposed project would have no impact.
VII.
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
(a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that
may have a significant impact on the environment?
Discussion
Less-Than-Significant Impact. To address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the installation and
use of field lighting for the proposed project, this ND calculated GHG emissions from the construction
equipment needed to install the electrical conduit and light fixtures, as well as the electrical output from
use of the lights themselves. Construction is a temporary source of emissions necessary to facilitate
development. Although these emissions are temporary, they must be accounted for, as the impact from
the emissions of GHGs is cumulative. Based on current SCAQMD methodology, GHGs emitted during
construction are amortized over an estimated 30-year project lifetime. The amortized emissions are then
combined with the operational emissions to provide a cumulative annual estimate of annual GHG
emissions for the proposed project. Construction emissions for greenhouse gases were generated using
CalEEMod and are included as Appendix B to this ND.
For the calculation of emissions from electrical usage, the kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electrical
consumption per year from operation of the lights were multiplied by the Southern California Edison
emission factors for Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), and Nitrous Oxide (N2O) for electrical
generation. These factors were then multiplied by their global warming potential (CO2 =1, CH4 = 21, and
N2O = 310) and added together to determine the total annual operation carbon dioxide equivalent
(CO2e) emissions for the proposed project. Based on information provided by Musco Lighting, each
fixture runs off of 1.564 kWh. 9 Therefore, the light fixtures would equate to 75 kW/h. The District
anticipates that operation of the field lighting would not exceed 125 hours per year, which would equate
to 9,375 kW/h per year.
9
Michael Winfrey, Email communication with Musco Sports Lighting LLC (February 10, 2012).
Glendale Unified School District
Hoover High School Practice Field Lighting Project
43
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
The CEQA Guidelines do not have numeric or qualitative thresholds of significance for greenhouse gas
emissions. The CEQA Guideline Amendments, adopted in December 2010, state that each local lead
agency must develop its own significance criteria based on local conditions, data, and guidance from
public agencies and other sources.
The SCAQMD is the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the Los
Angeles County area. In order to provide GHG emission guidance to the local jurisdictions within the
South Coast Air Basin, the SCAQMD organized a Working Group to develop GHG emission analysis
guidance and thresholds. SCAQMD released a draft guidance document regarding interim CEQA GHG
significance thresholds in October 2008. On December 5, 2008, the SCAQMD Governing Board
adopted the staff proposal for an interim GHG significance threshold for projects where the SCAQMD
is lead agency. SCAQMD proposed a tiered approach, whereby the level of detail and refinement needed
to determine significance increases with a project’s total GHG emissions. The tiered approach defines
projects that are exempt under CEQA and projects that are within the jurisdiction of, and subject to, the
policies of a GHG Reduction Plan as less than significant, and provides thresholds of significance.
For the purposes of this analysis and based on full consideration of the available information,
institutional projects, such as those associated with educational projects, that meet the following criteria
will be determined to have a less-than-significant impact with respect to the emissions of greenhouse
gases:
■ The institutional project must limit the emissions of greenhouse gases to 3,000 MT CO2e
annually or less, pursuant to SCAQMD’s draft GHG emissions threshold for residential projectlevel analysis.
■ The individual project must comply with the plans and policies of SB 375 and the AB 32 Scoping
Plan adopted by California ARB for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
Following the SCAQMD recommendations, construction emissions would be amortized over an
anticipated 30-year structure lifetime and added to the operational emissions to provide an average
annual emissions estimate. Table 2 (Estimated Annual GHG Emissions) shows the estimated GHG
emissions for the construction and operation of the proposed project. Detailed assumptions and
emission calculations are included in Appendix B.
Table 2
Estimated Annual GHG Emissions
Emission Source
Amortized Construction
Metric Tons CO2e
1.38
a
Energy
2.704
Total
SCAQMD Institutional Screening Threshold
Significant?
SOURCE:
44
4.09 MT CO2e
3,000 MT CO2e
No
Atkins (2012) (CalEEMod 2011.1 was used to determine construction
emissions; CalEEMod output is included in Appendix B).
Glendale Unified School District
Hoover High School Practice Field Lighting Project
SECTION VIII. Hazards/Hazardous Materials
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
GHG emissions would be substantially below the recommended SCAQMD threshold and therefore, this
impact would be less than significant.
(b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Discussion
Less-Than-Significant Impact. AB 32, The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 establishes
California’s target to reduce emissions back to 1990 levels by the year 2020. SB 375, a follow up to
AB 32, establishes targets for reducing emissions from passenger vehicles. The SCAQMD draft CEQA
thresholds for GHG emissions were developed following AB 32 and SB 375 in order to aid the state in
reaching these targets. The CEQA threshold was developed to evaluate a project’s GHG emissions as
well as its consistency with AB 32 and SB 375. Therefore, the analysis provided under Section VII(a)
above also provides an analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with AB 32 and SB 375. Since the
proposed project would produce emissions that are below the SCAQMD threshold, both options of the
proposed project is consistent with AB 32 and SB 375, the statewide policies for reducing GHG
emissions. GHG emissions would be substantially below the recommended SCAQMD threshold and
therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
VIII. HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
(a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
Discussion
Less-Than-Significant Impact. Hazardous materials associated with the proposed project would
consist mostly of construction related equipment and materials. Use and/or storage of hazardous
materials at the project site are expected to be minimal and would not constitute a level that would be
subject to regulation.
During the construction phase, hazardous materials in the form of solvents, glues, and other common
construction materials containing toxic substances may be transported to the site, and construction waste
that possibly contains hazardous materials could be transported off the site for purposes of disposal.
Appropriate documentation for all hazardous waste that is transported off site in connection with
activities at the HHS Campus would be provided as required to ensure compliance with the existing
hazardous materials regulations.
Operation of the proposed project would not require the handling of hazardous materials or result in the
production of large amounts of hazardous waste. During the construction phase, the proposed project
may generate hazardous and/or toxic waste. Federal, state, and local regulations govern the disposal of
Glendale Unified School District
Hoover High School Practice Field Lighting Project
45
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
wastes identified as hazardous which could be produced in the course of demolition and construction.
Any potential hazardous materials encountered during demolition or construction activities would be
disposed of in compliance with all applicable regulations for the handling of such waste. Adherence to all
applicable federal and state laws related routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would
reduce the likelihood and severity of accidents which might occur during disposal of site-generated
hazardous wastes, transit of hazardous waste, and project-induced upset from hazardous materials to a
level that is less than significant.
(b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Discussion
Less-Than-Significant Impact.
Construction Effects
The proposed project site does not appear on any regulatory agency database. 10 Construction activities of
the proposed project could result in the exposure of construction personnel and the public to previously
identified hazardous substances in the soil. Exposure to unanticipated hazardous substances could also
occur from previously unidentified soil contamination caused by migrating contaminants originating at
nearby listed sites. Exposure to hazardous materials during construction activities could occur as a result
of any of the following:
■ Direct dermal contact with hazardous materials
■ Incidental ingestion of hazardous materials (usually due to improper hygiene, when workers fail
to wash their hands before eating, drinking, or smoking)
■ Inhalation of airborne dust released from dried hazardous materials
Federal and state regulations govern the renovation and demolition of structures where materials
containing lead and asbestos are present. These requirements include: Construction Safety Orders 1529
(pertaining to asbestos) and 1532.1 (pertaining to lead), and lead exposure guidelines provided by the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Asbestos and lead abatement must be
performed and monitored by contractors with appropriate certifications from the state Department of
Health Services. In addition, Cal-OSHA regulates worker safety with respect to the use of hazardous
materials, including requirements for safety training, availability of safety equipment, hazardous materials
exposure warnings, and emergency action and fire prevention plan preparation. Cal-OSHA enforces the
hazard communication program regulations, which include provisions for identifying and labeling
hazardous materials, describing the hazards of chemicals, and documenting employee training programs.
Geotracker, Database search,
http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=651+Glenwood+Road%2C+Glendale+CA
(accessed April 11, 2012).
10
46
Glendale Unified School District
Hoover High School Practice Field Lighting Project
SECTION VIII. Hazards/Hazardous Materials
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
If any unidentified sources of contamination are encountered during grading or excavation of the
proposed project, the removal activities required could pose health and safety risks capable of resulting in
various short-term or long-term adverse health effects in exposed persons. Compliance with existing
regulations and would ensure that construction workers and the general public are not exposed to any
unusual or excessive risks related to hazardous materials during construction activities. As such, impacts
associated with the exposure of construction workers and the public to hazardous materials during
construction activities for the proposed project would be less than significant.
Operational Effects
It is not anticipated that operation the proposed project would create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset or accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment. Hazardous materials could be stored within the project site
would consist of common chemicals. Development of the proposed project would include the use and
storage of common hazardous materials such as paints, solvents, and cleaning products for maintenance
of the restroom facilities. The properties and health effects of different chemicals are unique to each
chemical and depend on the extent to which an individual is exposed. The extent and exposure of
individuals to hazardous materials would be limited by the relatively small quantities of these materials
that are expected to be stored and used on the project site. As common maintenance products and
chemicals would be consumed by use and with adherence to warning labels and storage
recommendations from the individual manufacturers, these hazardous materials would not pose any
greater risk than at any other similar development. Therefore, the probability of a major hazardous
materials incident would be remote for the proposed project. Minor incidents could occur, but the
consequences of such accidents would likely not be severe due to the types and amount of common
chemicals anticipated to be used at the site. Impacts would be less than significant.
(c)
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or
proposed school?
Discussion
Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project site is the HHS practice field and the existing
Hoover High School campus. The next closest schools to the project site are the Mark Keppel
Elementary School and Eleanor J. Toll Middle School located to the south across Glenwood Road. As
discussed above under items VIII(a) and (b), the use of hazardous materials and substances during the
operation of the proposed project are generally minimal and in small quantities. Currently, hazardous
materials are used at Hoover High School for maintenance and repair activities, landscaping, air
conditioning, medical supplies, and science labs. Operation of the HHS facility would continue as under
existing conditions. All hazardous materials and substances at the proposed project site would be subject
to federal, state, and local health and safety requirements (i.e. RCRA, California Hazardous Waste
Control Law, and principles prescribed by the California Department of Health Services, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, and National Institutes of Health) and the proposed project would be
under the regulatory oversight agencies (e.g., Los Angeles County Environmental Health Division, DTSC
Glendale Unified School District
Hoover High School Practice Field Lighting Project
47
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
and/or RWQCB. The proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact with regard to
the emission or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or wastes within
0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school (air quality emissions are discussed in Section III, above).
(d) Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials
sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,
as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
Discussion
No Impact. The Hoover High School campus does not appear on any regulatory agency database.
Adherence to existing laws and regulations would ensure that the no impact associated with exposure to
hazardous materials from the development of the proposed project would occur.
(e)
If located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use
airport, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
(f)
If within the vicinity of a private airstrip, result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
Discussion
No Impact. The proposed project site is located approximately 8 miles southeast of the Bob Hope
Airport, located at 2627 North Hollywood Way in the City of Burbank. Bob Hope Airport is governed
by the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission Comprehensive Land Use Plan guidelines.
This document is intended to provide for reasonable, safe, and efficient use of the airport as a public
transportation facility, provide a base for aviation and aviation-related operations, and protect the
municipal environment from the effects of aircraft noise. Potential land use development is to be judged
compatible with the airport based on criteria set forth in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Procedural
Policies contained in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan document. According to the Bob Hope Airport
Influence Area Map, the proposed project site is not located in an airport land use plan area. 11 FAR Part
77 regulations establish standards and notification requirements for objects affecting navigable airspace.
CRF Title 14 Part 77.13 requires that any project applicant who intends to perform any construction or
alterations to structures that exceed 200 feet in height above ground level must notify the Federal
Aviation Administration for project approval. The proposed project would not require high-rise
structures in the proximity of the airport airway that could conflict with FAR Part 77 regulations. As a
result, the proposed project would not result in safety hazards for people residing or working in the area,
and no impact would occur.
Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission, Comprehensive Land Use Plan (December 2011), Figure
(Burbank/Glendale/Pasadena Airport Influence Area Map), http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/data/pd_alup.pdf
(accessed March 23, 2012).
11
48
Glendale Unified School District
Hoover High School Practice Field Lighting Project
SECTION VIII. Hazards/Hazardous Materials
Potentially
Significant
Impact
(g)
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Discussion
No Impact. The installation of a field lighting system would not interfere with an emergency response
plan or an emergency evacuation plan and field lighting will in no way interfere with the City of Glendale
emergency operations. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project, which involves the
installation and restricted operation of four permanent light poles on the practice field, would have no
impact on emergency response or evacuation plans.
(h)
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or
death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
Discussion
No Impact. The proposed project site and surrounding area are characterized by features typical of an
urban landscape and include industrial uses. No wildlands exist within the immediate vicinity of the
proposed project site. Consequently, development of the proposed project would not result in the
exposure of people or structures to hazards associated with wildland fires and no impact would occur.
Glendale Unified School District
Hoover High School Practice Field Lighting Project
49
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
IX.
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
(a)
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
(b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level
(e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to
a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
(c)
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in
a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off
site?
(d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner that would result in flooding on or off site?
(e)
Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
(f)
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Discussion
Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project site is located in a built-out urban environment,
and currently the proposed project site consists of the existing HHS practice field. Implementation of the
proposed project would result in the installation of four light poles and the construction of a 1,500 sf
restroom/storage facilities.
Construction Phase
The proposed project would include construction activities, such as clearing and digging, excavation, soil
compaction, cut and fill activities, and grading, all of which would temporarily disturb soils. Disturbed
soils are susceptible to high rates of erosion from wind and rain, resulting in sediment transport from the
site. Erosion and sedimentation affects water quality through interference with photosynthesis, oxygen
exchange, and the respiration, growth, and reproduction of aquatic species. Additionally, other pollutants,
such as nutrients, trace metals, and hydrocarbons, can attach to sediment and be transported
downstream, which could contribute to degradation of water quality.
The delivery, handling, and storage of construction materials and wastes, as well as the use of
construction equipment, could also introduce a risk for stormwater contamination that could impact
water quality. Spills or leaks from heavy equipment and machinery can result in oil and grease
contamination, and some hydrocarbon compound pollution associated with oil and grease can be toxic
to aquatic organisms at low concentrations. Staging areas or building sites can also be the source of
50
Glendale Unified School District
Hoover High School Practice Field Lighting Project
SECTION IX. Hydrology/Water Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
pollution due to the use of paints, solvents, cleaning agents, and metals during construction. Impacts
associated with metals in stormwater include toxicity to aquatic organisms, such as accumulation of
substances, or other organic chemicals in an organism, and the potential contamination of drinking
supplies. Larger pollutants, such as trash, debris, and organic matter, are additional pollutants that could
be associated with construction activities. Impacts include health hazards and aquatic ecosystem damage
associated with bacteria, viruses, and vectors (an organism, such as a mosquito or tick that spreads
pathogens from one host to another). Construction impacts on water quality are potentially significant
and could lead to exceedance of standards or criteria.
All construction activities would be subject to existing regulatory requirements. As required by the
Stormwater NPDES Permit and Construction General Permit, the project developer would file a notice
of intent (NOI) with the State of California to comply with the requirements of the General
Construction Permit. This would include the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) incorporating Best Management Practices (BMPs) for construction-related control of erosion
and sedimentation contained in stormwater runoff. Typical BMPs that could be incorporated into the
SWPPP would include, but are not limited to, the following:
■ Diversion of off-site runoff away from the construction site
■ Vegetation of proposed landscaped/grassed swale areas as soon as feasible following grading
activities
■ Re-vegetation of exposed soil surfaces as soon as feasible following grading activities
■ Placement of perimeter straw wattles to prevent off-site transport of sediment
■ Usage of drop inlet protection (filters and sand bags or straw wattles), with sandbag check dams
within paved roadways
■ Regular watering of exposed soils to control dust during construction
■ Implementation of specifications for construction waste handling and disposal
■ Usage of contained equipment wash-out and vehicle maintenance areas
■ Maintenance of erosion and sedimentation control measures throughout the construction period
■ Stabilization of construction entrances to avoid trucks from imprinting debris on city roadways
■ Training of subcontractors on general site housekeeping
The development of a construction SWPPP has been identified as a means to protect water quality
during construction activities. Incorporation of required BMPs for materials and waste storage and
handling, equipment and vehicle maintenance and fueling, as well as for outdoor work areas, would
reduce potential discharge of stormwater pollutants from these sources. Compliance with existing
regulations would prevent violation of water quality standards and minimize the potential for
contributing additional sources of polluted runoff. Therefore, violation of water quality standards, and
contributions of additional sources of polluted runoff during construction of the proposed project would
be less than significant.
Glendale Unified School District
Hoover High School Practice Field Lighting Project
51
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Operational Phase
Development of the proposed project would slightly increase the amount of potential stormwater runoff
due to the increase in impermeable surfaces such as the restroom facilities compared to existing
conditions. During the operational phase of the proposed project, the major source of pollution in
stormwater runoff would be contaminants that have accumulated on rooftops and other impervious
surfaces. Pollutants associated with the operational phase of the proposed project include nutrients, oil
and grease, metals, organics, pesticides, and gross pollutants (including trash, debris, and bacteria).
The proposed project is expected to result in a slight increase in runoff because the project site would
slightly increase the amount of impervious surfaces. Any discharges would flow to a lined or
underground storm drain system. The proposed project could include the use of typical household
hazardous materials on site. The proposed project could contribute more gross pollutants (e.g., trash,
debris, pet waste) to stormwater runoff. Implementation of surface parking with a higher use rate could
contribute to increased pollutants. Pesticides and nutrients used for landscaping would be expected to
increase because the landscaping would be maintained on a more regular basis. Aerially deposited metals,
nutrients, and other constituents would slightly increase due to the increase in the amount of impervious
surfaces compared to existing conditions. The proposed project would implement BMPs to install storm
captor gutter system to filter the runoff before discharge. The impact would be less than significant.
Acceptable structural and nonstructural BMPs are listed in the California Stormwater Quality
Association’s (CASQA) Stormwater BMP Handbook for New Development and Redevelopment in compliance
with the Stormwater NPDES Permit. 12 Treatment flow rate or volume design requirements for structural
BMPs are specified in the Stormwater NPDES Permit. Implementation of the existing regulations would
ensure that appropriate BMPs are used, and regulatory requirements are met. Therefore, violation of
water quality standards, and contribution of additional sources of polluted runoff during operation of the
proposed project would be less than significant.
The proposed project site is neither a designated groundwater recharge area, nor does the project site
serve as a primary source of groundwater recharge. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project
would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge, and a lessthan-significant impact would occur.
Overall, compliance with existing laws and regulations would ensure that the proposed project would
result in a less-than-significant impact with respect to water quality or drainage in the proposed project
area.
12
California Stormwater Quality Association, Handbook for New Development and Redevelopment (2003).
52
Glendale Unified School District
Hoover High School Practice Field Lighting Project
SECTION X. Land Use/Planning
Potentially
Significant
Impact
(g)
Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map?
(h)
Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would
impede or redirect flood flows?
(i)
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or
death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure
of a levee or dam?
(j)
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Discussion
No Impact. The proposed project area is within Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) Flood
Zone Designation X (Zone X). 13 Zone X is an area of minimal flood hazard, usually depicted on Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) as above the 500-year flood level. 14 According to the City of Glendale
General Plan Safety Element, the proposed project site is not located within the inundation zone of any
levee or dam. 15 The proposed project site is not within a 100-year flood hazard area or inundation zone,
and therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. No mitigation is required.
X.
LAND USE/PLANNING
Would the project:
(a) Physically divide an established community?
Discussion
No Impact. The proposed project would not divide an established community and would not create
physical barriers or separations within the communities. The proposed project would not result in the
permanent closure of any streets or sidewalks or the separation of uses and/or disruption of access
between land use types. No impact would occur.
13 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Map Service Center—FEMA-Issued Flood Maps (Map ID 06037C1790F,
Los Angeles Co Uninc & Inc Areas) (2008),
http://map1.msc.fema.gov/idms/IntraView.cgi?ROT=0&O_X=7204&O_Y=5224&O_ZM=0.056949&O_SX=820&
O_SY=595&O_DPI=400&O_TH=49697313&O_EN=49697313&O_PG=1&O_MP=1&CT=0&DI=0&WD=14408
&HT=10448&JX=1362&JY=655&MPT=0&MPS=0&ACT=0&KEY=49636055&ITEM=1&ZX1=324&ZY1=172&
ZX2=532&ZY2=356 (accessed April 11, 2012).
14 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Definition of FEMA Flood Zone Designations (2011).
15 City of Glendale, City of Glendale General Plan, Safety Element,
http://www.ci.glendale.ca.us/planning/pdf_files/safety_element/safety_element.pdf (accessed April 11, 2012)
Glendale Unified School District
Hoover High School Practice Field Lighting Project
53
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
(b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of
an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or
zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
Discussion
No Impact. The project is consistent with plans and goals adopted by the City of Glendale. The
proposed project includes the installation and operation of four, 90-foot-tall light poles along the
perimeter of the running track and the development of a 1,500 sf one-story restroom and storage facility.
The proposed project would not introduce new uses to the project site, rather the proposed project
would allow for the extended use of the project site by existing uses. Specifically, operation of field
lighting would allow for HHS sports team practices that currently conclude at dusk be extended
approximately 30 minutes to 1 hour in order for practice to be properly concluded and athletes to depart
in a safe manner. Use of the proposed field lighting by outside sports group would require a Facilities
Use Permit issued by GUSD, similar to existing conditions that would establish the allowable hours of
use. Additionally, the practice field and track would continue to be available to local residents for
informal recreational uses (i.e., walking, jogging uses), similar to the existing conditions. The proposed
project is not in conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
Therefore, no impact would occur.
(c)
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
Discussion
No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan, as there are none regulating activities within City of Glendale. The
proposed project site is not located within or in the vicinity of a habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan. Therefore, there would be no impact.
54
Glendale Unified School District
Hoover High School Practice Field Lighting Project
SECTION XI. Mineral Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
XI.
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
(a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
(b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan, or other land use plan?
Discussion
No Impact. The project site is developed a grass field and a dirt running track. No mining operations or
mineral production occur on the project site or within the proposed project area. The City’s General Plan
Open Space and Conservation Element identifies the project site as being in Mineral Resource Zone
(MRZ) 3, an area containing mineral deposits that significance of which cannot be evaluated from
available data. Although the project site may contain mineral deposits, because no mining operation or
mineral production activities occur on the project site, implementation of the proposed project would
not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or locally important mineral resource
recovery site. Additionally, implementation of the proposed project would not preclude future mineral
resource recovery activities from occurring on the project site. As the proposed project would have no
impact on mineral resources.
XII.
NOISE
Would the project:
(a) Result in the exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Discussion
Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would not generate any additional student
population or vehicle trips to the campus that would generate noise. Noise sensitive receptors in the
vicinity of the proposed project are the residential uses located immediately to the west and adjacent to
the practice field, and the residential uses located to the north across from Olmstead Drive. Glendale
Municipal Code Section 8.36.040 establishes daytime residential exterior noise levels at 55 dBA, and
evening exterior noise levels at45 dBA.
The construction activities associated with the proposed project could result in a small but temporary
increase in ambient noise levels. Construction noise could be generated by dirt haulers, concrete mixers,
materials delivery and on-site movement, and hand and power tools such as hammers, skill saws,
pneumatic nail guns, and power drills, as well as by the arrival and departure of construction laborers and
the on-site servicing of equipment. The City of Glendale Municipal Code Section 8.36.080 allows for
noise resulting from construction activities to be exempt from noise limits established in the Code. In
Glendale Unified School District
Hoover High School Practice Field Lighting Project
55
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
accordance with the Noise Ordinance, construction activities would also be limited to the hours of
7:00 AM and 7:00 PM on Monday through Saturday, and is prohibited on Sundays and federal holidays. As
construction would not occur except during the times permitted in the Noise Ordinance, and as the
Municipal Code Section 8.36.080 allows construction noise in excess of standards to occur between these
hours, the proposed project would not violate established standards.
Operation of the proposed project would not involve new uses at the HHS practice field, rather,
proposed project would allow for the extended use of the project site by existing uses. Specifically,
operation of field lighting would allow for HHS sports team practices that currently conclude at dusk be
extended approximately 30 minutes to 1 hour in order for practice to be properly concluded and athletes
to depart in a safe manner. Use of the proposed field lighting by outside sports group would require a
Facilities Use Permit issued by GUSD, similar to existing conditions that would establish the allowable
hours of use. It is anticipated that the field lights would not be in use past the hour of 10:00 PM at
anytime. Therefore, night time use that would utilize the field lighting would not result in new noise
sources associated with uses on the practice field, but would result in changes to when these uses
typically occur, as evening uses could more easily be accommodated. City of Glendale Municipal Code
Section 8.36.290(b) (Exemptions) specifically allows for:
Activities conducted on public parks or playgrounds and public or private school grounds including
but not limited to school athletic and school entertainment events or outdoor activities such as public
dances, shows, sporting events, and entertainment events provided such events are conducted
pursuant to a permit issued by the City where otherwise required.
Therefore, night time use that would utilize the field lighting would not result in new noise sources
associated with uses on the practice field, but would result in changes to when these uses typically occur,
as evening uses could more easily be accommodated. This impact would be less than significant.
(b) Result in the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Discussion
Less-Than-Significant Impact. Vibration generated by construction-related activities on the proposed
project area would be restricted by the requirements of the City’s noise ordinance pursuant to the
provisions of Municipal Code Section 8.36.080. The proposed project would comply with all the cited
sections of the Municipal Code. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not be
expected to result in significant vibration-related environmental effects during the construction period.
As such, implementation of the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact.
56
Glendale Unified School District
Hoover High School Practice Field Lighting Project
SECTION XII. Noise
Potentially
Significant
Impact
(c)
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
(d) Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
Discussion
Less-Than-Significant Impact. Construction-related activities associated with the proposed project
would be restricted by the requirements of the City’s noise ordinance pursuant to the provisions of
Municipal Code Section 8.36.080.
The proposed project includes installation of lighting at the HHS practice field which would allow for
HHS sports team practices that currently conclude at dusk be extended approximately 30 minutes to
1 hour in order for practice to be properly concluded, as well as permitted community use. No other
operational changes are proposed with implementation of the proposed project. As the proposed project
would not increase bleacher capacity at the practice field, a permanent change (or increase) in traffic
would not occur as a result of the proposed project. As a result, the existing ambient noise levels would
not be substantially changed as a result of a change (or increase) in ambient vehicle noise.
Off-site single-family residential uses directly adjacent to the practice field to the east would experience
temporary increases in noise levels during practice or community use events. However, this increase in
noise levels would be temporary in nature, as the noise increases would only occur during the evenings
that the practice field would be utilized. Further, the identified increased noise levels would not be
continuous noise, but rather peaks that would occur sporadically throughout the events, and would
typically last for less than 5 minutes. Once the practice event ended, the noise generated by such an event
would also end. As the proposed project would not result in a permanent increase in ambient noise
levels, this impact would be less than significant.
(e)
If located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use
airport, result in the exposure of people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
(f)
If within the vicinity of a private airstrip, result in the exposure of
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
Discussion
No Impact. The proposed project site is located approximately 8 miles southeast of the Bob Hope
Airport, located at 2627 North Hollywood Way in the City of Burbank. Accordingly, implementation of
the proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels from private or public airport, and no impact would occur.
Glendale Unified School District
Hoover High School Practice Field Lighting Project
57
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. POPULATION/HOUSING
Would the project:
(a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Discussion
No Impact. The project site is developed a grass field and a dirt running track. Implementation of the
proposed project would result in the installation and operation of field lighting and the construction of a
1,500 sf restroom/storage facility intended to improve conditions on the existing HHS practice field. As
the proposed project does not include a residential component or other elements that would either
directly or indirectly induce population growth, no impact would occur.
(b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
(c)
Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Discussion
No Impact. The project site is developed a grass field and a dirt running track. No housing currently
occurs on the project site. As such, implementation of the proposed project would result in the
displacement of existing house or people, and no impact would occur.
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES
(a)
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, or in the need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
(i)
Fire protection?
(ii)
Police protection?
(iii)
Schools?
(iv) Parks?
(v)
Other public facilities?
Discussion
Less-Than-Significant Impact. The project site is developed a grass field and a dirt running track.
Implementation of the proposed project would result in the installation and operation of field lighting
and the construction of a 1,500 sf restroom/storage facility intended to better accommodate existing
HHS practice field users. Accordingly, the proposed project would not introduce new uses to the project
site, rather the proposed project would allow for the extended use of the project site by existing uses. As
58
Glendale Unified School District
Hoover High School Practice Field Lighting Project
SECTION XV. Recreation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
such, the proposed project does not include any elements that would result in increased demand for
public services and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
XV.
RECREATION
Would the project:
(a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
(b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
Discussion
Less-Than-Significant Impact. The project site is developed a grass field and a dirt running track.
Implementation of the proposed project would result in the installation and operation of field lighting
and the construction of a 1,500 sf restroom/storage facility intended to better accommodate existing
HHS practice field users. The proposed project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks and does include the construction or expansion recreational facilities that would result in
adverse physical effects on the environment. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact to recreation
would occur as a result of the proposed project.
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Would the project:
(a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation
system, taking into account all modes of transportation including
mass transit and nonmotorized travel and relevant components of
the circulation system, including, but not limited to, intersections,
streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and
mass transit?
Discussion
Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would not, in itself, create new vehicle trips;
operation of field lighting would not result in a substantial increase in the number of vehicle trips
associated with event attendance at the practice field, as events including community uses currently occur
at the campus. However, the operation of lighting at the practice field would allow events to occur in the
evenings as opposed to existing conditions where events are typically held in the afternoon. Operation of
the proposed project would not generate any new traffic to the Hoover High School Campus or the City
of Glendale. The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, ordinance, or policy and,
therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Glendale Unified School District
Hoover High School Practice Field Lighting Project
59
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
(b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to, level of service standards and travel
demand measures, or other standards established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways?
Discussion
No Impact. The proposed project would not introduce new uses to the project site, rather the proposed
project would allow for the extended use of the project site by existing uses. Specifically, operation of
field lighting would allow for HHS sports team practices that currently conclude at dusk be extended
approximately 30 minutes to 1 hour in order for practice to be properly concluded and athletes to depart
in a safe manner. Use of the proposed field lighting by outside sports group would require a Facilities
Use Permit issued by GUSD, similar to existing conditions. Therefore, no impact would occur.
(c)
Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase
in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial
safety risks?
Discussion
No Impact. The proposed project site is located approximately 8 miles southeast of the Bob Hope
Airport, located at 2627 North Hollywood Way in the City of Burbank. Bob Hope Airport is governed
by the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission Comprehensive Land Use Plan guidelines.
This document is intended to provide for reasonable, safe, and efficient use of the airport as a public
transportation facility, provide a base for aviation and aviation-related operations, and protect the
municipal environment from the effects of aircraft noise. According to the Bob Hope Airport Influence
Area Map, the proposed project site is not located in an airport land use plan area. The proposed project
does not include an aviation component, and would not change air traffic patterns. No impact would
occur.
(d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
(e)
Result in inadequate emergency access?
(f)
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public
transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the
performance or safety of such facilities?
Discussion
No Impact. Implementation of practice field lighting would not increase hazards due to a design feature
or compatible use, result in inadequate emergency access, or conflict with adopted policies plans or
programs regarding transit, and no impact would occur. Because the proposed project would result in the
operation of lighting at the practice field on the HHS Campus and does not include modifications to
existing design features or emergency access, no impact would occur.
60
Glendale Unified School District
Hoover High School Practice Field Lighting Project
SECTION XVII. Utilities/Service Systems
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. UTILITIES/SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
(a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
Discussion
Less-Than-Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the
installation and operation of field lighting and the construction of a 1,500 sf restroom/storage facility
intended to better accommodate existing HHS practice field users. The 1,500 sf restroom and storage
facility would include restroom, storage, electrical, and custodial uses. The restroom would be developed
with 6 sinks, seven toilets, three urinals, one drinking fountain and one mop sink. The Glendale Public
Works Department (GPWD) provides sewer collection and treatment services in the City. Sewage from
the City is treated by the City of Los Angeles Hyperion System, which includes the Los
Angeles/Glendale Water Reclamation Plant, located outside the Glendale City limits in Los Angeles, and
the Hyperion Treatment Plant, located in Playa del Rey. The City and the City of Los Angeles jointly own
and share operating capacity of the Los Angeles/Glendale Water Reclamation Plant. Any City sewage
not treated at the Los Angeles/Glendale Water Reclamation Plant is treated at the Hyperion Treatment
Plant. As the proposed project would not increase student population at the HHS Campus, the proposed
project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements and this impact would be less than
significant.
(b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Discussion
Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project site is located in an area served by an existing
sewer collection and conveyance system, all of which are maintained by the GPWD. The new restroom
associated with the project would connect to this existing system, which involves coordination with the
GPWD regarding design, operation, and maintenance. All utility connections to the proposed project
would be required to comply with applicable Uniform Codes, City ordinances, Public Works standards,
and Water Division criteria. Since the overall student population will not change, there will not be a net
increase in wastewater generation. As such, construction of facilities or expansion of existing facilities
would not be required. Impacts would be less than significant.
Glendale Unified School District
Hoover High School Practice Field Lighting Project
61
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
(c)
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
Discussion
Less-Than-Significant Impact. The HHS practice field is located in a developed area of the City of
Glendale, which contains an existing stormwater collection and conveyance system. Development of the
proposed project would reduce the amount of impervious coverage on other portions of the site where
the restroom facility and light fixtures are proposed. The modification of impervious surfaces may reduce
alteration of the existing stormwater drainage collection systems. As part of the proposed project,
stormwater drainage plans will comply with regulatory requirements. Compliance with the Municipal
Stormwater NPDES Permit would ensure that the capacity of the existing storm drainage infrastructure
serving the project site would not be diminished and impacts of the proposed project to the storm drain
system would be less than significant.
(d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
Discussion
Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would increase water demand by a minor
amount due to the new restroom at the proposed project site. The Campus’ water supply would
adequately supply the new restroom’s water needed and, therefore, would have a less-than-significant
impact to water supply.
(e)
Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that
serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to
serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s
existing commitments?
Discussion
Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project site is located in an area served by an existing
sewer collection and conveyance system, all of which are maintained by the GPWD. The new restroom
associated with the project would connect to this existing system, which involves coordination with the
GPWD regarding design, operation, and maintenance. All utility connections to the proposed project
would be required to comply with applicable Uniform Codes, City ordinances, Public Works standards,
and Water Division criteria. Since the overall student population will not change, there will not be a net
increase in wastewater generation. Impacts would be less than significant.
62
Glendale Unified School District
Hoover High School Practice Field Lighting Project
SECTION XVII. Utilities/Service Systems
Potentially
Significant
Impact
(f)
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
Discussion
Less-Than-Significant Impact. Operation of the proposed project would not generate solid waste at
the proposed project site other than minor landscaping cuttings. Construction activity related solid waste
would be disposed of at the landfills that serve the City of Glendale. The construction related solid waste
contribution to any of the landfills under the proposed project would be less than 0.1 percent. The
California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) requires city and county jurisdictions to
identify an implementation schedule to divert 50 percent of the total waste stream from landfill disposal
by the year 2000 and 70 percent by the year 2020. In addition, given current and future landfill capacity,
the solid waste impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed project would be less than
significant. No mitigation is required.
(g)
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
Discussion
Less-Than-Significant Impact. A significant impact would occur if the proposed project were to
generate solid waste that is not disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. As stated above,
the proposed project would result in a significant increase in the demand for solid waste services
compared to existing conditions. As under current conditions, solid waste generated on site would be
disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations related to solid waste. In
addition, as the proposed project site is located within California, it would be required to comply with the
California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) which was enacted to reduce, recycle,
and reuse solid waste generated in the state to the maximum amount feasible. Specifically, the Act
requires city and county jurisdictions to identify an implementation schedule to divert 50 percent of the
total waste stream from landfill disposal by the year 2000 and 70 percent by the year 2020. Therefore,
impacts would be less than significant.
(h)
Require or result in the construction of new energy production or
transmission facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause a significant environmental
impact?
Discussion
Less-Than-Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would increase the use of
electricity for operation of the field lights and the restroom facility. The Proposed project would comply
with the provisions of Title 24 of the CCR and would be designed to conserve energy. It is anticipated
that the electricity demand generated by the proposed project could be supplied without the need for
additional construction or expansion of energy facilities. Therefore, this impact for the proposed project
would be less than significant.
Glendale Unified School District
Hoover High School Practice Field Lighting Project
63
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
w/Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
(a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
Discussion
Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project site is located within an urban and fully
developed area, and would not have an impact on the habitat or population level of fish or wildlife
species; threaten a plant or animal community; or impact the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal. Although the remote possibility exists for the discovery of previously unknown archaeological
resources, paleontological resources, or human remains during excavation and grading activities, as
compliance with existing laws and regulations would ensure that the proposed project impact remain less
than significant.
(b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means
that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Discussion
Less-Than-Significant Impact. As the proposed project would have no impact or a less-thansignificant impact to all CEQA issue areas and the proposed project would be isolated to the HHS
practice field and the Campus, cumulatively considerable impacts would not occur. Cumulative impacts
are not anticipated as a result of the proposed project, and would be considered less than significant.
(c)
Does the project have environmental effects that will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Discussion
Less-Than-Significant Impact. As disclosed throughout this ND, the proposed project would not
have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, as no impacts
were determined to be significant. Accordingly, the proposed project would result in a less-thansignificant impact related to substantial adverse effects on human beings.
64
Glendale Unified School District
Hoover High School Practice Field Lighting Project
References
REFERENCES
California Department of Conservation. California Geological Survey—Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zone, January 2010. http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/download/ap/pdf/BURBANK.PDF
(accessed April 3, 2012)
———. Seismic Hazard Factsheet, 2008.
California Education Codes 17212 and 17212.5.
California Stormwater Quality Association. Handbook for New Development and Redevelopment, 2003.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. Definition of FEMA Flood Zone Designations, 2011.
———. Map Service Center—FEMA-Issued Flood Maps (Map ID 06037C1790F, Los Angeles Co
Uninc & Inc Areas), 2008.
http://map1.msc.fema.gov/idms/IntraView.cgi?ROT=0&O_X=7204&O_Y=5224&O_ZM=0.0569
49&O_SX=820&O_SY=595&O_DPI=400&O_TH=49697313&O_EN=49697313&O_PG=1&O
_MP=1&CT=0&DI=0&WD=14408&HT=10448&JX=1362&JY=655&MPT=0&MPS=0&ACT=0
&KEY=49636055&ITEM=1&ZX1=324&ZY1=172&ZX2=532&ZY2=356 (accessed April 11,
2012).
Geotracker. Database search.
http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=651+Glenwood+Road
%2C+Glendale+CA (accessed April 11, 2012).
Glendale, City of. City of Glendale General Plan. Open Space and Conservation Element.
http://www.ci.glendale.ca.us/planning/pdf_files/GeneralPlan/OpenSpace/1993%20Open%20Spac
e%20and%20Conservation%20Element%20with%20Amendments.pdf (accessed April 10, 2012)
———. City of Glendale General Plan. Safety Element.
http://www.ci.glendale.ca.us/planning/pdf_files/safety_element/safety_element.pdf. (Accessed
April 11, 2012)
Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission. Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Figure
(Burbank/Glendale/Pasadena Airport Influence Area Map), December 2011.
http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/data/pd_alup.pdf (accessed March 23, 2012).
Rubio, Mark. Personal communication with Assistant Principle, Hoover High School, March 29, 2012
Winfrey, Michael, Email communication with Musco Sports Lighting LLC, February 10, 2012.
Glendale Unified School District
Hoover High School Practice Field Lighting Project
65
Appendix A
Air Quality CalEEMod Modeling Data
tblProjectCharacteristics
ProjectName
LocationScope
EMFAC_ID
WindSpeed
PrecipitationFrequency
100027457 Hoover HS Field Light Project
AD
SCAQMD
2.2
31
ClimateZone
UrbanizationLevel
OperationalYear
UtilityCompany
CO2IntensityFactor
9
Urban
2012
Glendale Water & Power
1065
CH4IntensityFactor
N2OIntensityFactor
TotalPopulation
TotalLotAcreage
UsingHistoricalEnergyUseData
0.029
0.011
0
1.03
0
Page 1
tblPollutants
PollutantSelection
PollutantFullName
PollutantName
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG)
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Particulate Matter 10um (PM10)
Particulate Matter 2.5um (PM2.5)
Fugitive PM10um (PM10)
Fugitive PM2.5um (PM2.5)
Total Organic Gases (TOG)
Lead (Pb)
Biogenic Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
Non-Biogenic Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
Methane (CH4)
Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
CO2 Equivalent GHGs (CO2e)
ROG
NOX
CO
SO2
PM10
PM2_5
PM10_FUG
PM25_FUG
TOG
PB
CO2_BIO
CO2_NBIO
CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2E
Page 2
tblLandUse
LandUseType
LandUseSubType
LandUseUnitAmount
LandUseSizeMetric
Commercial
Recreational
User Defined Commercial
City Park
1500
1
User Defined Unit
Acre
Page 3
LotAcreage LandUseSquareFeet Population
0.03
1
1500
0
0
0
tblConstructionPhase
PhaseNumber
PhaseName
PhaseType
1
2
3
4
5
Grading
Trenching
Paving
Building Construction
Architectural Coating
Grading
Trenching
Paving
Building Construction
Architectural Coating
PhaseStartDate PhaseEndDate NumDaysWeek NumDays PhaseDescription
2012/06/18
2012/07/14
2012/07/31
2012/08/07
2012/09/05
Page 4
2012/07/13
2012/07/30
2012/08/06
2012/09/04
2012/09/25
5
5
5
5
5
20
11
5
21
15
tblOffRoadEquipment
PhaseName
OffRoadEquipmentType
Demolition
Demolition
Grading
Grading
Paving
Paving
Paving
Paving
Paving
Building Construction
Building Construction
Building Construction
Building Construction
Building Construction
Architectural Coating
Concrete/Industrial Saws
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
Graders
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
Cement and Mortar Mixers
Pavers
Paving Equipment
Rollers
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
Cranes
Forklifts
Generator Sets
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
Welders
Air Compressors
OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount UsageHours HorsePower LoadFactor
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Page 5
8
8
6
7
6
6
8
7
8
6
6
8
6
8
6
81
75
162
75
9
89
82
84
75
208
149
84
75
46
78
0.73
0.55
0.61
0.55
0.56
0.62
0.53
0.56
0.55
0.43
0.3
0.74
0.55
0.45
0.48
tblTripsAndVMT
PhaseName
WorkerTripNumber
VendorTripNumber
HaulingTripNumber
WorkerTripLength
Grading
Trenching
Paving
Building Construction
Architectural Coating
8
0
13
0
0
0
0
0
19
0
0
0
0
12.7
12.7
12.7
12.7
12.7
VendorTripLength
HaulingTripLength
WorkerVehicleClass
VendorVehicleClass
HaulingVehicleClass
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.4
20
20
20
20
20
LD_Mix
LD_Mix
LD_Mix
LD_Mix
LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HDT_Mix
HDT_Mix
HDT_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
HHDT
HHDT
HHDT
HHDT
Page 6
tblOnRoadDust
PhaseName
WorkerPercentPave
VendorPercentPave
HaulingPercentPave
RoadSiltLoading
Grading
Trenching
Paving
Building Construction
Architectural Coating
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
MaterialSiltContent
MaterialMoistureContent
AverageVehicleWeight
MeanVehicleSpeed
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
40
40
40
40
40
Page 7
tblDemolition
PhaseName DemolitionSizeMetric
Page 8
DemolitionUnitAmount
tblGrading
PhaseName
MaterialImported
MaterialExported
GradingSizeMetric
ImportExportPhased
Grading
0
150
Cubic Yards
0
MeanVehicleSpeed
AcresOfGrading
MaterialMoistureContentBulldozing
MaterialMoistureContentTruckLoading
MaterialSiltContent
7.1
7.5
7.9
12
6.9
Page 9
tblArchitecturalCoating
PhaseName
ArchitecturalCoatingStartDate
ArchitecturalCoatingEndDate
EF_Residential_Interior
Architectural Coating
2008/07/01
3000/12/31
50
ConstArea_Residential_Interior
EF_Residential_Exterior
ConstArea_Residential_Exterior
EF_Nonresidential_Interior
0
100
0
250
ConstArea_Nonresidential_Interior
EF_Nonresidential_Exterior
ConstArea_Nonresidential_Exterior
2250
250
750
Page 10
tblPaving
ParkingLotAcreage
Page 11
tblVehicleTrips
VehicleTripsLandUseSubType
VehicleTripsLandUseSizeMetric
City Park
User Defined Commercial
Acre
User Defined Unit
CNW_TL
PR_TP
7.4
7.4
66
0
WD_TR ST_TR
0
0
0
0
SU_TR
HW_TL
HS_TL
HO_TL
CC_TL
CW_TL
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13.3
13.3
8.9
8.9
DV_TP PB_TP HW_TTP HS_TTP HO_TTP CC_TTP CW_TTP CNW_TTP
28
0
Page 12
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
48
0
33
0
19
0
tblVehicleEF
Season
EmissionType
LDA
LDT1
LDT2
MDV
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
S
S
S
S
S
FleetMix
CH4_IDLEX
CH4_RUNEX
CH4_STREX
CO_IDLEX
CO_RUNEX
CO_STREX
CO2_IDLEX
CO2_RUNEX
CO2_STREX
NOX_IDLEX
NOX_RUNEX
NOX_STREX
PM10_IDLEX
PM10_PMBW
PM10_PMTW
PM10_RUNEX
PM10_STREX
PM25_IDLEX
PM25_PMBW
PM25_PMTW
PM25_RUNEX
PM25_STREX
ROG_DIURN
ROG_HTSK
ROG_IDLEX
ROG_RESTL
ROG_RUNEX
ROG_RUNLS
ROG_STREX
SO2_IDLEX
SO2_RUNEX
SO2_STREX
TOG_DIURN
TOG_HTSK
TOG_IDLEX
TOG_RESTL
TOG_RUNEX
TOG_RUNLS
TOG_STREX
FleetMix
CH4_IDLEX
CH4_RUNEX
CH4_STREX
CO_IDLEX
0.508948
0
0.02
0.01
0
1.91
4.13
0
359.214
66.899
0
0.16
0.27
0
0.01
0.008
0.01
0.0061
0
0.0054
0.002
0.01
0.0057
0.1
0.16
0
0.07
0.05
0.082277
0.34
0
0.0038
0.0008
0.1
0.16
0
0.07
0.08
0.082277
0.37
0.508948
0
0.02
0.01
0
0.076636
0
0.02
0.02
0
3.01
5.03
0
445.246
82.0705
0
0.27
0.31
0
0.01
0.008
0.01
0.0071
0
0.0054
0.002
0.01
0.0066
0.1
0.18
0
0.08
0.11
0.126344
0.38
0
0.0047
0.0009
0.1
0.18
0
0.08
0.14
0.126344
0.4
0.076636
0
0.02
0.01
0
0.228152
0
0.03
0.02
0
2.72
5.47
0
454.879
83.9325
0
0.33
0.52
0
0.01
0.008
0.02
0.01
0
0.0054
0.002
0.02
0.01
0.1
0.16
0
0.07
0.07
0.124541
0.43
0
0.0048
0.001
0.1
0.16
0
0.07
0.11
0.124541
0.45
0.228152
0
0.03
0.02
0
0.105457
0
0.03
0.03
0
3.38
6.95
0
619.875
115.1115
0
0.44
0.66
0
0.01
0.008
0.02
0.01
0
0.0054
0.002
0.02
0.01
0.1
0.15
0
0.07
0.12
0.117192
0.62
0
0.0065
0.0013
0.1
0.15
0
0.07
0.16
0.117192
0.66
0.105457
0
0.04
0.02
0
LHD1
LHD2
MHD
0.020538
0.006
0.01482
0.0015
0.0013
0.0009
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.21
0.19
0.14
3.22
1.88
2.76
6.71
4.67
6.47
7.6665
8.1605
11.9985
611.572 580.545 1295.686
36.4705 30.1625
13.699
0.01
0.04
0.18
1.43
2.73
6.44
1.65
1.38
0.69
0.0002
0.0006
0.0022
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.17
0.0023
0.0021
0.0012
0.0002
0.0005
0.002
0.0054
0.0054
0.0054
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.01
0.01
0.15
0.0021
0.0019
0.001
0.0027
0.0019
0.0008
0.04
0.03
0.01
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.0009
0.0006
0.0003
0.22
0.16
0.2
0.381163 0.258915 0.10958
0.55
0.42
0.49
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0062
0.0059
0.01
0.0005
0.0004
0.0003
0.0027
0.0019
0.0008
0.04
0.03
0.01
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.0009
0.0006
0.0003
0.25
0.18
0.23
0.381163 0.258915 0.10958
0.59
0.45
0.53
0.020538
0.006
0.01482
0.0015
0.0013
0.0009
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.21
0.19
0.14
Page 13
HHD
0.026898
0.11
0.05
0.1
9.81
5.36
26.95
1322.324
1717.049
17.6605
23.87
12.1
2.66
0.3
0.02
0.03
0.57
0.002
0.27
0.01
0.0088
0.52
0.0018
0.001
0.02
2.37
0.0004
1.06
0.015457
1.78
0.01
0.01
0.0006
0.001
0.02
2.7
0.0004
1.2
0.015457
1.91
0.026898
0.1
0.05
0.09
7.14
OBUS
UBUS
MCY
SBUS
MH
0.001123
0.0017
0.006037 0.000907 0.002784
0.0012
0
0
0.03
0
0.02
0.05
0.22
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.07
0.14
0.03
0.05
0.18
0
0
5.42
0
3.12
8.58
34.49
7.21
9.49
9.71
17.28
9.68
7.04
13.67
10.6495
0
0
527.003
0
1132.9225 2059.7235 145.4735 1333.6005 706.173
21.3275
42.047
46.1985
17.841
34.694
0.11
0
0
8.64
0
4.01
15.48
1.18
9.84
1.93
1.29
1.99
0.3
0.43
1.16
0.0014
0
0
0.11
0
0.01
0.01
0.0063
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.0092
0.004
0.01
0.01
0.09
0.24
0.03
0.38
0.01
0.002
0.0035
0.01
0.0011
0.0009
0.0013
0
0
0.11
0
0.0054
0.0054
0.0027
0.0054
0.0054
0.003
0.0023
0.001
0.003
0.003
0.08
0.22
0.02
0.35
0.01
0.0018
0.0033
0.01
0.0009
0.0008
0.0008
0.008
0.91
0.0081
1.62
0.01
0.14
0.35
0.05
0.09
0.02
0
0
0.75
0
0.0003
0.0041
0.49
0.0031
0.59
0.18
1.11
3.12
0.57
0.29
0.164927 0.033678 0.414063 0.053695 0.01864
0.62
1.3
2.2
0.52
0.85
0.0001
0
0
0.0053
0
0.01
0.02
0.0021
0.01
0.0073
0.0004
0.0007
0.0007
0.0003
0.0006
0.0008
0.008
0.91
0.0081
1.62
0.01
0.14
0.35
0.05
0.09
0.03
0
0
0.82
0
0.0003
0.0041
0.49
0.0031
0.59
0.21
1.22
3.39
0.63
0.34
0.164927 0.033678 0.414063 0.053695 0.01864
0.66
1.38
2.37
0.55
0.92
0.001123
0.0017
0.006037 0.000907 0.002784
0.0012
0
0
0.03
0
0.02
0.05
0.22
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.06
0.12
0.02
0.04
0.18
0
0
5.42
0
tblVehicleEF
Season
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
EmissionType
LDA
LDT1
LDT2
MDV
LHD1
LHD2
MHD
HHD
OBUS
UBUS
MCY
SBUS
MH
CO_RUNEX
2.11
3.23
3
3.68
3.28
1.9
2.77
5.38
3.16
8.62
32.63
7.12
9.6
CO_STREX
3.15
3.87
4.16
5.31
5.21
3.67
5.37
23.15
7.84
14.44
8.65
5.99
10.61
CO2_IDLEX
0
0
0
0
7.6665
8.1605
11.9985 1397.678
10.6495
0
0
527.003
0
CO2_RUNEX 383.401 473.347 484.348 660.136 611.572 580.545 1295.686 1717.049 1132.9225 2059.7235 145.4735 1333.6005 706.173
CO2_STREX
66.899
82.0705 83.9325 115.1115 36.4705 30.1625
13.699
17.6605
21.3275
42.047
46.1985
17.841
34.694
NOX_IDLEX
0
0
0
0
0.01
0.04
0.18
24.71
0.11
0
0
8.64
0
NOX_RUNEX
0.15
0.26
0.32
0.42
1.41
2.72
6.42
12.1
3.97
15.4
1.12
9.8
1.88
NOX_STREX
0.25
0.28
0.47
0.6
1.58
1.32
0.66
2.54
1.24
1.89
0.29
0.4
1.11
PM10_IDLEX
0
0
0
0
0.0002
0.0006
0.0022
0.25
0.0014
0
0
0.11
0
PM10_PMBW
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.0063
0.01
0.01
PM10_PMTW
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.0092
0.004
0.01
0.01
PM10_RUNEX
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.17
0.57
0.09
0.24
0.03
0.38
0.01
PM10_STREX
0.0061
0.0071
0.01
0.01
0.0023
0.0021
0.0012
0.002
0.002
0.0035
0.01
0.0011
0.0009
PM25_IDLEX
0
0
0
0
0.0002
0.0005
0.002
0.23
0.0013
0
0
0.11
0
PM25_PMBW
0.0054
0.0054
0.0054
0.0054
0.0054
0.0054
0.0054
0.01
0.0054
0.0054
0.0027
0.0054
0.0054
PM25_PMTW
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.0088
0.003
0.0023
0.001
0.003
0.003
PM25_RUNEX
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.15
0.52
0.08
0.22
0.02
0.35
0.01
PM25_STREX
0.0057
0.0066
0.01
0.01
0.0021
0.0019
0.001
0.0018
0.0018
0.0033
0.01
0.0009
0.0008
ROG_DIURN
0.19
0.2
0.19
0.19
0.0044
0.003
0.0013
0.0017
0.0012
0.01
1.75
0.01
2.58
ROG_HTSK
0.18
0.19
0.18
0.17
0.04
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.15
0.43
0.05
0.1
ROG_IDLEX
0
0
0
0
0.03
0.03
0.02
2.23
0.02
0
0
0.75
0
ROG_RESTL
0.11
0.13
0.12
0.12
0.0016
0.0011
0.0006
0.0009
0.0006
0.0071
0.99
0.0055
1.02
ROG_RUNEX
0.06
0.11
0.08
0.12
0.23
0.16
0.2
1.06
0.18
1.12
2.98
0.57
0.3
ROG_RUNLS 0.078853 0.119603 0.117316 0.110652 0.373059 0.252532 0.108424 0.015461 0.162009 0.031854 0.391118 0.049599 0.01829
ROG_STREX
0.28
0.31
0.35
0.51
0.47
0.36
0.42
1.52
0.54
1.15
1.89
0.44
0.7
SO2_IDLEX
0
0
0
0
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.01
0.0001
0
0
0.0053
0
SO2_RUNEX
0.0041
0.005
0.0051
0.0069
0.0062
0.0059
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.0021
0.01
0.0073
SO2_STREX
0.0008
0.0009
0.0009
0.0013
0.0005
0.0004
0.0002
0.0006
0.0004
0.0007
0.0007
0.0003
0.0005
TOG_DIURN
0.19
0.2
0.19
0.19
0.0044
0.003
0.0013
0.0017
0.0012
0.01
1.75
0.01
2.58
TOG_HTSK
0.18
0.19
0.18
0.17
0.04
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.15
0.43
0.05
0.1
TOG_IDLEX
0
0
0
0
0.03
0.03
0.02
2.54
0.03
0
0
0.82
0
TOG_RESTL
0.11
0.13
0.12
0.12
0.0016
0.0011
0.0006
0.0009
0.0006
0.0071
0.99
0.0055
1.02
TOG_RUNEX
0.08
0.14
0.11
0.16
0.26
0.18
0.23
1.2
0.21
1.24
3.25
0.63
0.34
TOG_RUNLS 0.078853 0.119603 0.117316 0.110652 0.373059 0.252532 0.108424 0.015461 0.162009 0.031854 0.391118 0.049599 0.01829
TOG_STREX
0.3
0.33
0.38
0.55
0.5
0.39
0.45
1.63
0.57
1.23
2.04
0.48
0.75
FleetMix
0.508948 0.076636 0.228152 0.105457 0.020538
0.006
0.01482 0.026898 0.001123
0.0017
0.006037 0.000907 0.002784
CH4_IDLEX
0
0
0
0
0.0015
0.0013
0.0009
0.11
0.0012
0
0
0.03
0
CH4_RUNEX
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.02
0.05
0.23
0.03
0.04
CH4_STREX
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.1
0.03
0.07
0.14
0.03
0.05
CO_IDLEX
0
0
0
0
0.21
0.19
0.14
13.57
0.18
0
0
5.42
0
CO_RUNEX
1.84
2.92
2.62
3.26
3.21
1.87
2.76
5.35
3.11
8.57
34.67
7.24
9.48
CO_STREX
4.23
5.15
5.61
7.12
6.79
4.73
6.49
26.99
9.75
17.39
9.73
7.37
13.68
CO2_IDLEX
0
0
0
0
7.6665
8.1605
11.9985 1216.8265 10.6495
0
0
527.003
0
CO2_RUNEX 348.954 433.3615 442.415 602.8415 611.572 580.545 1295.686 1717.049 1132.9225 2059.7235 145.4735 1333.6005 706.173
CO2_STREX
66.899
82.0705 83.9325 115.1115 36.4705 30.1625
13.699
17.6605
21.3275
42.047
46.1985
17.841
34.694
Page 14
tblVehicleEF
Season
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
EmissionType
LDA
NOX_IDLEX
0
NOX_RUNEX
0.18
NOX_STREX
0.28
PM10_IDLEX
0
PM10_PMBW
0.01
PM10_PMTW
0.008
PM10_RUNEX
0.01
PM10_STREX
0.0061
PM25_IDLEX
0
PM25_PMBW
0.0054
PM25_PMTW
0.002
PM25_RUNEX
0.01
PM25_STREX
0.0057
ROG_DIURN
0.12
ROG_HTSK
0.2
ROG_IDLEX
0
ROG_RESTL
0.06
ROG_RUNEX
0.05
ROG_RUNLS 0.093176
ROG_STREX
0.35
SO2_IDLEX
0
SO2_RUNEX
0.0037
SO2_STREX
0.0008
TOG_DIURN
0.12
TOG_HTSK
0.2
TOG_IDLEX
0
TOG_RESTL
0.06
TOG_RUNEX
0.08
TOG_RUNLS 0.093176
TOG_STREX
0.37
LDT1
0
0.3
0.31
0
0.01
0.008
0.01
0.0071
0
0.0054
0.002
0.01
0.0066
0.12
0.21
0
0.07
0.11
0.14806
0.38
0
0.0046
0.0009
0.12
0.21
0
0.07
0.14
0.14806
0.41
LDT2
MDV
LHD1
LHD2
MHD
0
0
0.01
0.04
0.18
0.37
0.49
1.56
2.92
6.9
0.52
0.66
1.65
1.38
0.69
0
0
0.0002
0.0006
0.0022
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.008
0.008
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.17
0.01
0.01
0.0023
0.0021
0.0012
0
0
0.0002
0.0005
0.002
0.0054
0.0054
0.0054
0.0054
0.0054
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.15
0.01
0.01
0.0021
0.0019
0.001
0.12
0.12
0.0038
0.0026
0.0011
0.19
0.18
0.05
0.04
0.02
0
0
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.06
0.06
0.0008
0.0006
0.0003
0.07
0.11
0.22
0.16
0.2
0.147529 0.138212 0.415701 0.283696 0.116097
0.43
0.63
0.55
0.42
0.49
0
0
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0046
0.0063
0.0062
0.0059
0.01
0.001
0.0013
0.0005
0.0004
0.0003
0.12
0.12
0.0038
0.0026
0.0011
0.19
0.18
0.05
0.04
0.02
0
0
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.06
0.06
0.0008
0.0006
0.0003
0.1
0.15
0.25
0.18
0.23
0.147529 0.138212 0.415701 0.283696 0.116097
0.46
0.67
0.59
0.45
0.53
Page 15
HHD
OBUS
UBUS
MCY
SBUS
MH
22.69
12.93
2.66
0.37
0.02
0.03
0.57
0.002
0.34
0.01
0.0088
0.52
0.0018
0.0014
0.03
2.57
0.0004
1.06
0.016239
1.78
0.01
0.01
0.0006
0.0014
0.03
2.93
0.0004
1.2
0.016239
1.91
0.11
4.33
1.3
0.0014
0.01
0.01
0.09
0.002
0.0013
0.0054
0.003
0.08
0.0018
0.001
0.02
0.02
0.0003
0.18
0.17596
0.62
0.0001
0.01
0.0004
0.001
0.02
0.03
0.0003
0.21
0.17596
0.66
0
16.57
1.99
0
0.01
0.0092
0.24
0.0035
0
0.0054
0.0023
0.22
0.0033
0.01
0.19
0
0.0042
1.1
0.039113
1.3
0
0.02
0.0007
0.01
0.19
0
0.0042
1.22
0.039113
1.39
0
1.32
0.3
0
0.0063
0.004
0.03
0.01
0
0.0027
0.001
0.02
0.01
1.2
0.49
0
0.41
3.13
0.483873
2.22
0
0.0021
0.0007
1.2
0.49
0
0.41
3.41
0.483873
2.39
8.64
10.5
0.44
0.11
0.01
0.01
0.38
0.0011
0.11
0.0054
0.003
0.35
0.0009
0.01
0.07
0.75
0.0031
0.57
0.063108
0.54
0.0053
0.01
0.0003
0.01
0.07
0.82
0.0031
0.63
0.063108
0.57
0
2.13
1.17
0
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.0009
0
0.0054
0.003
0.01
0.0008
2.27
0.13
0
0.59
0.29
0.019674
0.86
0
0.0073
0.0006
2.27
0.13
0
0.59
0.34
0.019674
0.92
tblRoadDust
RoadPercentPave RoadSiltLoading MaterialSiltContent
100
0.1
4.3
MaterialMoistureContent
MobileAverageVehicleWeight
MeanVehicleSpeed
0.5
2.4
40
Page 16
tblWoodstoves
WoodstovesLandUseSubType
NumberConventional
NumberCatalytic
NumberPellet
WoodstoveDayYear
WoodstoveWoodMass
Page 17
NumberNoncatalytic
tblFireplaces
FireplacesLandUseSubType
NumberNoFireplace
NumberWood
NumberGas
NumberPropane
FireplaceHourDay FireplaceDayYear FireplaceWoodMass
Page 18
tblConsumerProducts
ROG_EF
0.0000198
Page 19
tblAreaCoating
Area_EF_Residential_Interior
Area_Residential_Interior
Area_EF_Residential_Exterior
Area_Residential_Exterior
Area_EF_Nonresidential_Interior
50
0
100
0
250
Area_Nonresidential_Interior
Area_EF_Nonresidential_Exterior
Area_Nonresidential_Exterior
ReapplicationRatePercent
2250
250
750
10
Page 20
tblLandscapeEquipment
NumberSnowDays NumberSummerDays
0
365
Page 21
tblEnergyUse
EnergyUseLandUseSubType
City Park
User Defined Commercial
T24E NT24E LightingElect T24NG NT24NG
0
0
0
0
Page 22
9375
0
0
0
0
0
tblWater
WaterLandUseSubType
WaterLandUseSizeMetric
IndoorWaterUseRate
OutdoorWaterUseRate
City Park
User Defined Commercial
Acre
User Defined Unit
0
0
0
0
ElectricityIntensityFactorToSupply
ElectricityIntensityFactorToTreat
ElectricityIntensityFactorToDistribute
ElectricityIntensityFactorForWastewaterTreatment
9727
9727
111
111
1272
1272
1911
1911
SepticTankPercent
AerobicPercent
AnaerobicandFacultativeLagoonsPercent
AnaDigestCombDigestGasPercent
10
10
84.69
84.69
2.14
2.14
3.17
3.17
AnaDigestCogenCombDigestGasPercent
0
0
Page 23
tblSolidWaste
SolidWasteLandUseSubType
SolidWasteLandUseSizeMetric
SolidWasteGenerationRate
City Park
User Defined Commercial
Acre
User Defined Unit
0
0
LandfillNoGasCapture LandfillCaptureGasFlare
6
6
Page 24
94
94
LandfillCaptureGasEnergyRecovery
0
0
tblLandUseChange
VegetationLandUseType
VegetationLandUseSubType
Page 25
AcresBegin AcresEnd CO2peracre
tblSequestration
BroadSpeciesClass NumberOfNewTrees CO2perTree
Page 26
tblConstEquipMitigation
ConstMitigationEquipmentType
Air Compressors
Cement and Mortar Mixers
Concrete/Industrial Saws
Cranes
Forklifts
Generator Sets
Graders
Pavers
Paving Equipment
Rollers
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
Welders
FuelType Tier
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
NumberOfEquipmentMitigated
TotalNumberOfEquipmentMitigated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
1
Page 27
DPF OxidationCatalyst
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
tblConstDustMitigation
SoilStabilizerCheck
SoilStabilizerPM10PercentReduction
SoilStabilizerPM25PercentReduction
0
ReplaceGroundCoverPM10PercentReduction
ReplaceGroundCoverCheck
0
ReplaceGroundCoverPM25PercentReduction
WaterExposedAreaCheck
WaterExposedAreaFrequency
1
3
WaterExposedAreaPM10PercentReduction
WaterExposedAreaPM25PercentReduction
WaterUnpavedRoadMoistureContentCheck
WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeedCheck
61
61
0
0
WaterUnpavedRoadMoistureContent
WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed
CleanPavedRoadCheck
CleanPavedRoadPercentReduction
0
Page 28
tblLandUseMitigation
ProjectSetting
IncreaseDensityCheck
IncreaseDensityDUPerAcre
IncreaseDensityJobPerAcre
IncreaseDiversityCheck
ImproveWalkabilityDesignCheck
ImproveWalkabilityDesignIntersections
ImproveDestinationAccessibilityCheck
ImproveDestinationAccessibilityDistance
IncreaseTransitAccessibilityCheck
IncreaseTransitAccessibilityDistance
IntegrateBelowMarketRateHousingCheck
IntegrateBelowMarketRateHousingDU
ImprovePedestrianNetworkCheck
ImprovePedestrianNetworkSelection
ProvideTrafficCalmingMeasuresCheck
ProvideTrafficCalmingMeasuresPercentStreet
ProvideTrafficCalmingMeasuresPercentIntersection
ImplementNEVNetworkCheck
LimitParkingSupplyCheck
LimitParkingSupplySpacePercentReduction
UnbundleParkingCostCheck
UnbundleParkingCostCost
OnStreetMarketPricingCheck
OnStreetMarketPricingPricePercentIncrease
ProvideBRTSystemCheck
ProvideBRTSystemPercentBRT
ExpandTransitNetworkCheck
ExpandTransitNetworkTransitCoveragePercentIncrease
IncreaseTransitFrequencyCheck
IncreaseTransitFrequencyImplementationLevel
IncreaseTransitFrequencyHeadwaysPercentReduction
Page 29
tblCommuteMitigation
ImplementTripReductionProgramCheck
ImplementTripReductionProgramPercentEmployee
ImplementTripReductionProgramType
0
TransitSubsidyPercentEmployee
TransitSubsidyCheck
0
TransitSubsidyDailySubsidyAmount
ImplementEmployeeParkingCashOutCheck
ImplementEmployeeParkingCashOutPercentEmployee
0
WorkplaceParkingChargeCheck
WorkplaceParkingChargePercentEmployee
WorkplaceParkingChargeCost
0
EncourageTelecommutingPercentEmployee9_80
EncourageTelecommutingCheck
0
EncourageTelecommutingPercentEmployee4_40
EncourageTelecommutingPercentEmployee1_5days
MarketCommuteTripReductionOptionCheck
0
MarketCommuteTripReductionOptionPercentEmployee
EmployeeVanpoolCheck
EmployeeVanpoolPercentEmployee
0
ProvideRideSharingProgramCheck
EmployeeVanpoolPercentModeShare
2
ProvideRideSharingProgramPercentEmployee
0
ImplementSchoolBusProgramCheck
0
Page 30
ImplementSchoolBusProgramPercentFamilyUsing
tblAreaMitigation
LandscapeLawnmowerCheck
LandscapeLawnmowerPercentElectric
LandscapeLeafblowerCheck
0
LandscapeChainsawCheck
LandscapeLeafblowerPercentElectric
0
LandscapeChainsawPercentElectric
UseLowVOCPaintResidentialInteriorCheck
UseLowVOCPaintResidentialInteriorValue
0
50
0
UseLowVOCPaintResidentialExteriorCheck
UseLowVOCPaintResidentialExteriorValue
UseLowVOCPaintNonresidentialInteriorCheck
UseLowVOCPaintNonresidentialInteriorValue
0
100
0
250
UseLowVOCPaintNonresidentialExteriorCheck
UseLowVOCPaintNonresidentialExteriorValue
HearthOnlyNaturalGasHearthCheck
NoHearthCheck
0
250
0
0
UseLowVOCCleaningSuppliesCheck
0
Page 31
tblEnergyMitigation
ExceedTitle24Check
ExceedTitle24CheckPercentImprovement
InstallHighEfficiencyLightingCheck
InstallHighEfficiencyLightingPercentEnergyReduction
KwhGeneratedCheck
KwhGenerated
PercentOfElectricityUseGeneratedCheck
PercentOfElectricityUseGenerated
Page 32
OnSiteRenewableEnergyCheck
tblApplianceMitigation
ApplianceType
ApplianceLandUseSubType
ClothWasher
DishWasher
Fan
Refrigerator
PercentImprovement
30
15
50
15
Page 33
tblWaterMitigation
ApplyWaterConservationStrategyCheck
ApplyWaterConservationStrategyPercentReductionIndoor
ApplyWaterConservationStrategyPercentReductionOutdoor
0
PercentOutdoorReclaimedWaterUse
UseReclaimedWaterCheck
0
PercentIndoorReclaimedWaterUse
UseGreyWaterCheck
PercentOutdoorGreyWaterUse
0
PercentIndoorGreyWaterUse
InstallLowFlowBathroomFaucetCheck
PercentReductionInFlowBathroomFaucet
InstallLowFlowKitchenFaucetCheck
0
32
0
PercentReductionInFlowKitchenFaucet
InstallLowFlowToiletCheck
PercentReductionInFlowToilet
InstallLowFlowShowerCheck
18
0
20
0
PercentReductionInFlowShower
TurfReductionCheck
TurfReductionTurfArea
TurfReductionPercentReduction
20
0
UseWaterEfficientIrrigationSystemCheck
UseWaterEfficientIrrigationSystemPercentReduction
WaterEfficientLandscapeCheck
MAWA
0
6.1
0
ETWU
Page 34
tblWasteMitigation
InstituteRecyclingAndCompostingServicesCheck
InstituteRecyclingAndCompostingServicesWastePercentReduction
Page 35
tblRemarks
SubModuleID
1
3
4
5
5
5
5
9
12
20
21
22
25
PhaseName
Architectural Coating
Building Construction
Paving
Trenching
Season Remarks
Project is Athletic Field Lighting and a 1,500-sf one-story restroom and storage facility
Construction Schedule provided by Distirct
equipment provided by applicant
Equipment provided by applicant
Equipment provided by applicant
Equipment provided by applicant
Existing use, no new trips generated
New field lights would utilize 9,375 KW/h per year
Existing use, no new water usage.
Existing use, no new solid waste generation
Page 36
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2011.1.1
Date: 4/16/2012
100027457 Hoover HS Field Light Project
South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer
1.0 Project Characteristics
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses
Size
City Park
1
Metric
Acre
User Defined Commercial
1500
User Defined Unit
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Urban
Climate Zone
9
Utility Company
Wind Speed (m/s)
Glendale Water & Power
2.2
Precipitation Freq (Days)
1.3 User Entered Comments
31
Project Characteristics Land Use - Project is Athletic Field Lighting and a 1,500-sf one-story restroom and storage facility
Construction Phase - Construction Schedule provided by Distirct
Off-road Equipment - Equipment provided by applicant
Off-road Equipment - Equipment provided by applicant
Off-road Equipment - Equipment provided by applicant
Off-road Equipment - equipment provided by applicant
Grading Vehicle Trips - Existing use, no new trips generated
Energy Use - New field lights would utilize 9,375 KW/h per year
Water And Wastewater - Existing use, no new water usage.
Solid Waste - Existing use, no new solid waste generation
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation -
02 Hoover HS Field Light Project (OUTPUT_Summer).xls
1 of 10
2.0 Emissions Summary
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
Unmitigated Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
2012
3.27
20.63
13.24
0.02
0.97
Total
NA
NA
NA
NA
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
1.72
2.01
0.00
1.72
1.72
0.00
2,147.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
Year
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
0.00
0.30
0.00
2,153.22
NA
NA
NA
NA
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
lb/day
Mitigated Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
2012
3.27
20.63
13.24
0.02
0.72
1.72
1.92
0.00
1.72
1.72
0.00
2,147.00
0.00
0.30
0.00
2,153.22
Total
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Year
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
lb/day
2.2 Overall Operational
Unmitigated Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Area
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Energy
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Mobile
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Area
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Energy
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Mobile
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Category
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
lb/day
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Mitigated Operational
Category
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
02 Hoover HS Field Light Project (OUTPUT_Summer).xls
lb/day
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2 of 10
3.0 Construction Detail
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
3.2 Grading - 2012
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Category
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
0.00
0.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.01
1,465.06
0.18
1,468.82
1,465.06
0.18
1,468.82
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
Fugitive Dust
0.40
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
Off-Road
1.99
14.01
9.38
0.02
Total
1.99
14.01
9.38
0.02
0.40
1.01
1.41
0.00
1.01
1.01
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
0.00
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Hauling
0.05
0.56
0.29
0.00
0.44
0.02
0.47
0.00
0.02
0.02
78.76
0.00
Vendor
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Worker
0.05
0.06
0.65
0.00
0.12
0.00
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.01
102.95
0.01
103.08
Total
0.10
0.62
0.94
0.00
0.56
0.02
0.60
0.00
0.02
0.03
181.71
0.01
181.89
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
0.00
0.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.01
0.00
1,465.06
0.18
1,468.82
1.01
1.17
1.01
1.01
0.00
1,465.06
0.18
1,468.82
Category
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
78.81
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
Category
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
0.16
Fugitive Dust
Off-Road
1.99
14.01
9.38
0.02
Total
1.99
14.01
9.38
0.02
02 Hoover HS Field Light Project (OUTPUT_Summer).xls
0.16
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
0.00
0.00
3 of 10
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Hauling
0.05
0.56
0.29
0.00
0.44
Vendor
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Worker
0.05
0.06
0.65
Total
0.10
0.62
0.94
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
0.02
0.47
0.00
0.02
0.02
78.76
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.12
0.00
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.01
102.95
0.01
103.08
0.00
0.56
0.02
0.60
0.00
0.02
0.03
181.71
0.01
181.89
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
78.81
3.3 Trenching - 2012
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Hauling
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Vendor
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Worker
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Hauling
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Vendor
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Worker
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
3.4 Paving - 2012
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Off-Road
3.18
19.60
12.18
0.02
Paving
0.00
Total
3.18
Category
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
19.60
12.18
02 Hoover HS Field Light Project (OUTPUT_Summer).xls
0.02
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
1.71
1.71
1.71
1.71
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.71
1.71
1.71
1.71
1,712.73
0.29
1,718.73
1,712.73
0.29
1,718.73
0.00
4 of 10
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Hauling
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Vendor
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Worker
0.09
0.09
1.06
Total
0.09
0.09
1.06
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.01
0.21
0.00
0.01
0.01
167.29
0.01
167.51
0.00
0.20
0.01
0.21
0.00
0.01
0.01
167.29
0.01
167.51
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
0.00
1,712.73
0.29
1,718.73
1,712.73
0.29
1,718.73
Category
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
0.00
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Off-Road
3.18
19.60
12.18
0.02
Paving
0.00
Total
3.18
Category
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
19.60
12.18
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
1.71
1.71
1.71
1.71
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.71
1.71
1.71
1.71
0.00
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
0.02
CH4
0.00
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Hauling
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Vendor
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Worker
0.09
0.09
1.06
0.00
0.20
0.01
0.21
0.00
0.01
0.01
167.29
0.01
167.51
Total
0.09
0.09
1.06
0.00
0.20
0.01
0.21
0.00
0.01
0.01
167.29
0.01
167.51
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
0.00
3.5 Building Construction - 2012
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Off-Road
3.27
20.63
12.17
0.02
1.36
1.36
1.36
1.36
2,147.00
0.29
2,153.18
Total
3.27
20.63
12.17
0.02
1.36
1.36
1.36
1.36
2,147.00
0.29
2,153.18
Category
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
02 Hoover HS Field Light Project (OUTPUT_Summer).xls
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
5 of 10
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Hauling
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Vendor
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Worker
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
0.00
0.00
0.00
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
Category
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Off-Road
3.27
20.63
12.17
0.02
1.36
1.36
1.36
1.36
0.00
2,147.00
0.29
2,153.18
Total
3.27
20.63
12.17
0.02
1.36
1.36
1.36
1.36
0.00
2,147.00
0.29
2,153.18
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
Category
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Hauling
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Vendor
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Worker
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2012
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
Category
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
Archit. Coating
2.32
Off-Road
0.52
3.16
1.96
Total
2.84
3.16
1.96
02 Hoover HS Field Light Project (OUTPUT_Summer).xls
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
281.19
0.05
282.18
0.00
0.00
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
281.19
0.05
282.18
6 of 10
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Hauling
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Vendor
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Worker
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
0.00
0.00
0.00
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
Category
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
Archit. Coating
2.32
Off-Road
0.52
3.16
1.96
Total
2.84
3.16
1.96
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.00
281.19
0.05
282.18
0.00
0.00
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.00
281.19
0.05
282.18
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Hauling
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Vendor
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Worker
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
4.0 Mobile Detail
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Mitigated
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Unmitigated
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Category
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
02 Hoover HS Field Light Project (OUTPUT_Summer).xls
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7 of 10
4.2 Trip Summary Information
Average Daily Trip Rate
Land Use
Weekday
Saturday
Sunday
Unmitigated
Mitigated
Annual VMT
Annual VMT
City Park
0.00
0.00
0.00
User Defined Commercial
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
0.00
0.00
0.00
Land Use
H-W or C-W
H-S or C-C
H-O or C-NW
H-W or C-W
H-S or C-C
H-O or C-NW
City Park
8.90
13.30
7.40
33.00
48.00
19.00
User Defined Commercial
8.90
13.30
7.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.3 Trip Type Information
Miles
Trip %
5.0 Energy Detail
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
ROG
NOx
CO
Fugitive
PM10
SO2
Category
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
Exhaust
PM2.5
Fugitive
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Unmitigated
NaturalGas Use
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
kBTU
City Park
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
User Defined
Commercial
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
lb/day
CH4
02 Hoover HS Field Light Project (OUTPUT_Summer).xls
lb/day
8 of 10
Mitigated
NaturalGas Use
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
kBTU
City Park
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
User Defined
Commercial
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
lb/day
6.0 Area Detail
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
Exhaust
PM10
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
Fugitive
PM10
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Mitigated
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Unmitigated
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
NA
NA
NA
NA
CO
SO2
Category
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
NA
NA
0.00
0.00
NA
NA
NA
CH4
N2O
CO2e
6.2 Area by SubCategory
Unmitigated
ROG
NOx
SubCategory
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
lb/day
Architectural
Coating
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Consumer Products
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Landscaping
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
02 Hoover HS Field Light Project (OUTPUT_Summer).xls
9 of 10
Mitigated
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
SubCategory
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
lb/day
CH4
N2O
CO2e
lb/day
Architectural
Coating
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Consumer Products
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Landscaping
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.0 Water Detail
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
8.0 Waste Detail
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
9.0 Vegetation
02 Hoover HS Field Light Project (OUTPUT_Summer).xls
10 of 10
Appendix B
Greenhouse Gas Emissions CalEEMod
Modeling Data
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2011.1.1
Date: 4/16/2012
100027457 Hoover HS Field Light Project
South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual
1.0 Project Characteristics
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses
Size
City Park
1
Metric
Acre
User Defined Commercial
1500
User Defined Unit
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Urban
Climate Zone
9
Utility Company
Wind Speed (m/s)
Glendale Water & Power
2.2
Precipitation Freq (Days)
1.3 User Entered Comments
31
Project Characteristics Land Use - Project is Athletic Field Lighting and a 1,500-sf one-story restroom and storage facility
Construction Phase - Construction Schedule provided by Distirct
Off-road Equipment - Equipment provided by applicant
Off-road Equipment - Equipment provided by applicant
Off-road Equipment - Equipment provided by applicant
Off-road Equipment - equipment provided by applicant
Grading Vehicle Trips - Existing use, no new trips generated
Energy Use - New field lights would utilize 9,375 KW/h per year
Water And Wastewater - Existing use, no new water usage.
Solid Waste - Existing use, no new solid waste generation
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation -
01 Hoover HS Field Light Project (OUTPUT Annual).xls
1 of 12
2.0 Emissions Summary
2.1 Overall Construction
Unmitigated Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
2012
0.08
0.44
0.28
0.00
0.01
Total
0.08
0.44
0.28
0.00
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
0.03
0.04
0.00
0.03
0.03
0.00
41.48
41.48
0.01
0.00
41.59
0.01
0.03
0.04
0.00
0.03
0.03
0.00
41.48
41.48
0.01
0.00
41.59
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Year
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
tons/yr
CH4
N2O
CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
2012
0.08
0.44
0.28
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.04
0.00
0.03
0.03
0.00
41.48
41.48
0.01
0.00
41.59
Total
0.08
0.44
0.28
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.04
0.00
0.03
0.03
0.00
41.48
41.48
0.01
0.00
41.59
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Year
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
tons/yr
MT/yr
2.2 Overall Operational
Unmitigated Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Area
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Energy
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Mobile
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Waste
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Water
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Category
Total
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
tons/yr
0.01
0.00
0.00
01 Hoover HS Field Light Project (OUTPUT Annual).xls
0.00
0.00
0.00
MT/yr
0.00
0.00
2 of 12
Mitigated Operational
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Waste
0.00
0.00
0.00
Water
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
N2O
CO2e
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
13.29
13.29
0.00
0.00
13.32
13.29
13.29
0.00
0.00
13.32
CH4
N2O
CO2e
NOx
CO
SO2
Area
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Energy
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Mobile
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Category
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
CH4
ROG
PM10 Total
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
tons/yr
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MT/yr
0.00
3.0 Construction Detail
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
3.2 Grading - 2012
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Category
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
tons/yr
Fugitive Dust
0.00
MT/yr
Off-Road
0.02
0.14
0.09
0.00
Total
0.02
0.14
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Hauling
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.71
0.71
0.00
0.00
0.71
Vendor
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Worker
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.88
0.88
0.00
0.00
0.88
Total
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.59
1.59
0.00
0.00
1.59
Category
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
tons/yr
01 Hoover HS Field Light Project (OUTPUT Annual).xls
MT/yr
3 of 12
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Category
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
13.29
13.29
0.00
0.00
13.32
13.29
13.29
0.00
0.00
13.32
CH4
N2O
CO2e
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
tons/yr
0.00
Fugitive Dust
CH4
N2O
CO2e
MT/yr
Off-Road
0.02
0.14
0.09
0.00
Total
0.02
0.14
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Hauling
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.71
0.71
0.00
0.00
0.71
Vendor
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Worker
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.88
0.88
0.00
0.00
0.88
Total
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.59
1.59
0.00
0.00
1.59
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
tons/yr
MT/yr
3.3 Trenching - 2012
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Hauling
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Vendor
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Worker
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
tons/yr
MT/yr
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Hauling
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Vendor
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Worker
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Category
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
tons/yr
01 Hoover HS Field Light Project (OUTPUT Annual).xls
MT/yr
4 of 12
3.4 Paving - 2012
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Off-Road
0.01
0.05
0.03
0.00
Paving
0.00
Total
0.01
Fugitive
PM10
Category
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
tons/yr
0.05
0.03
CH4
N2O
CO2e
3.90
MT/yr
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.88
3.88
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.88
3.88
0.00
0.00
3.90
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
0.00
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Hauling
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Vendor
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Worker
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.36
0.36
0.00
0.00
0.36
Total
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.36
0.36
0.00
0.00
0.36
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
tons/yr
MT/yr
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Off-Road
0.01
0.05
0.03
0.00
Paving
0.00
Total
0.01
Category
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
tons/yr
0.05
0.03
MT/yr
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.88
3.88
0.00
0.00
3.90
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.88
3.88
0.00
0.00
3.90
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
0.00
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Hauling
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Vendor
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Worker
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.36
0.36
0.00
0.00
0.36
Total
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.36
0.36
0.00
0.00
0.36
Category
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
tons/yr
01 Hoover HS Field Light Project (OUTPUT Annual).xls
MT/yr
5 of 12
3.5 Building Construction - 2012
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
20.45
20.45
0.00
0.00
20.50
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
20.45
20.45
0.00
0.00
20.50
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Off-Road
0.03
0.22
0.13
0.00
0.01
Total
0.03
0.22
0.13
0.00
Category
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
tons/yr
CH4
N2O
CO2e
MT/yr
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Hauling
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Vendor
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Worker
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
tons/yr
MT/yr
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Off-Road
0.03
0.22
0.13
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
20.45
20.45
0.00
0.00
20.50
Total
0.03
0.22
0.13
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
20.45
20.45
0.00
0.00
20.50
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
tons/yr
MT/yr
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Hauling
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Vendor
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Worker
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Category
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
tons/yr
01 Hoover HS Field Light Project (OUTPUT Annual).xls
MT/yr
6 of 12
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2012
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Category
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
tons/yr
Archit. Coating
0.02
Off-Road
0.00
0.02
0.01
Total
0.02
0.02
0.01
CH4
N2O
CO2e
0.00
MT/yr
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.91
1.91
0.00
0.00
1.92
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.91
1.91
0.00
0.00
1.92
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Hauling
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Vendor
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Worker
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
tons/yr
MT/yr
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
Category
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
tons/yr
Archit. Coating
0.02
Off-Road
0.00
0.02
0.01
Total
0.02
0.02
0.01
MT/yr
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.91
1.91
0.00
0.00
1.92
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.91
1.91
0.00
0.00
1.92
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Hauling
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Vendor
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Worker
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Category
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
tons/yr
01 Hoover HS Field Light Project (OUTPUT Annual).xls
MT/yr
7 of 12
4.0 Mobile Detail
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Mitigated
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Unmitigated
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
NA
NA
NA
NA
Category
Exhaust
PM10
CH4
N2O
CO2e
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
tons/yr
MT/yr
4.2 Trip Summary Information
Average Daily Trip Rate
Land Use
Weekday
Saturday
Sunday
Unmitigated
Mitigated
Annual VMT
Annual VMT
City Park
0.00
0.00
0.00
User Defined Commercial
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
0.00
0.00
0.00
Land Use
H-W or C-W
H-S or C-C
H-O or C-NW
H-W or C-W
H-S or C-C
H-O or C-NW
City Park
8.90
13.30
7.40
33.00
48.00
19.00
User Defined Commercial
8.90
13.30
7.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.3 Trip Type Information
Miles
Trip %
5.0 Energy Detail
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Category
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
tons/yr
CH4
N2O
CO2e
MT/yr
Electricity Mitigated
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Electricity
Unmitigated
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
01 Hoover HS Field Light Project (OUTPUT Annual).xls
NA
NA
8 of 12
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Unmitigated
NaturalGas Use
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
kBTU
City Park
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
User Defined
Commercial
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Total
tons/yr
CH4
MT/yr
Mitigated
NaturalGas Use
Fugitive
PM10
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
Land Use
kBTU
City Park
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
User Defined
Commercial
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
CO
SO2
Total
tons/yr
MT/yr
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Unmitigated
Electricity Use
ROG
NOx
N2O
CO2e
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Total CO2
Land Use
kWh
City Park
0
0.00
User Defined
Commercial
0
CH4
tons/yr
MT/yr
Total
Mitigated
Electricity Use
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Land Use
kWh
City Park
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
User Defined
Commercial
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
01 Hoover HS Field Light Project (OUTPUT Annual).xls
tons/yr
MT/yr
9 of 12
6.0 Area Detail
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Mitigated
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Unmitigated
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
NA
NA
NA
NA
CO
SO2
Category
PM10 Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
CH4
N2O
CO2e
tons/yr
MT/yr
6.2 Area by SubCategory
Unmitigated
ROG
NOx
SubCategory
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
tons/yr
MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Consumer Products
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Landscaping
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Mitigated
SubCategory
Fugitive
PM10
Fugitive
PM2.5
NBio- CO2 Total CO2
tons/yr
MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Consumer Products
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Landscaping
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
01 Hoover HS Field Light Project (OUTPUT Annual).xls
10 of 12
7.0 Water Detail
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
ROG
NOx
Category
CO
SO2
Total CO2
CH4
tons/yr
N2O
CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Unmitigated
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
Total
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.2 Water by Land Use
Unmitigated
Indoor/Outdoor
Use
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Total CO2
CH4
tons/yr
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
Mgal
City Park
0/0
0.00
0.00
MT/yr
0.00
0.00
User Defined
Commercial
0/0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Total
Mitigated
Indoor/Outdoor
Use
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Land Use
Mgal
City Park
0/0
tons/yr
0.00
0.00
MT/yr
0.00
0.00
User Defined
Commercial
0/0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
8.0 Waste Detail
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
Category/Year
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Total CO2
CH4
tons/yr
N2O
CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Unmitigated
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
Total
NA
NA
NA
01 Hoover HS Field Light Project (OUTPUT Annual).xls
NA
11 of 12
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Unmitigated
Waste Disposed
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Total CO2
CH4
tons/yr
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
tons
City Park
0
0.00
0.00
MT/yr
0.00
0.00
User Defined
Commercial
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Total
Mitigated
Waste Disposed
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Land Use
tons
City Park
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
User Defined
Commercial
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
tons/yr
MT/yr
9.0 Vegetation
01 Hoover HS Field Light Project (OUTPUT Annual).xls
12 of 12
Operational Emissions
Hoover High School - Stadium Lighting: Photometrics
Greenhouse Gas Emission Worksheet
Electrical Emissions
Project:
Hoover High School - Stadium Lighting: Photometrics
Project Number:
100027457
Conversion to CO2e Units based on GWP
CH4
21
N2 O
310
CO2
1
Indirect Emissions from Electricity Use
Total Project Annual KWh:
Project Annual MWh (Uele):
9,237 kWH/year
9.24 MWH/year
Emission Factors for Electricity Use:
CO2
641.26 lbs/MWh/year
CH4
0.029 lbs/MWh/year
N2O
0.011 lbs/MWh/year
Annual Emissions from Electricity Use:
Total Emissions
CO2 emissions:
2.68678 metric tons
CH4 emissions:
0.00012 metric tons
N2O emissions:
0.00005 metric tons
Project Total
Notes:
Emissions (metric tons/year) =
Emissions in CO 2 e =
(provided by project sponsor)
Total CO2e Units
2.687 metric tons CO2e
0.003 metric tons CO2e
0.014 metric tons CO2e
2.704 metric tons CO 2 e
(annual project electrical usage in MWH/year * Emission Factor in lbs/MWH/year)
conversion factor from lbs to metric tons (2204.62 lbs/metric ton)
Emissions (metric tons/year) * GWP