SANTA MONICA MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT MALIBU MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC FIELD LIGHTING Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum

Transcription

1 SANTA MONICA MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT MALIBU MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC FIELD LIGHTING Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum SCH No Final Prepared for Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District th Street Santa Monica, California Contact: Janece Maez, Assistant Superintendent Prepared by Atkins Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 Los Angeles, California April 2012

2

3 Contents CONTENTS Introduction... 1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected Determination Evaluation of Environmental s Environmental Issues I. Aesthetics II. Agriculture/Forestry Resources III. Air Quality IV. Biological Resources V. Cultural Resources VI. Geology/Soils VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions VIII. Hazards/Hazardous Materials IX. Hydrology/Water Quality X. Land Use/Planning XI. Mineral Resources XII. Noise XIII. Population/Housing XIV. Public Services XV. Recreation XVI. Transportation/Traffic XVII. Utilities/Service Systems XVIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance References Appendices Appendix A California Coastal Commission Staff Report W13A Appendix B California Coastal Commission Staff Report W17A Appendix C Design Element of Spill Light and Glare Control Technical Bulletin Appendix D Air Quality Data Appendix E Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data SMMUSD MMHS Athletic Field Light MND Addendum iii

4 Contents Figures Figure 1 Revised Project Athletic Field Lighting Plan... 7 Figure 2 Typical Light Poles and Fixtures... 9 Figure 3 Revised Project Light Fixture Visor Figure 4 Regional and Site Location Map Figure 5 Aerial View of MMHS Athletic Field Figure 6 Public Viewing Point Location Map Figure 6a Public Viewing Points 1 and Figure 6b Public Viewing Points 3 and Figure 6c Public Viewing Points 5 and Figure 6d Public Viewing Point Figure 7 Context Sections: Approved Project Compared to Revised Project Figure 8 Areas of Light Pole Visibility for the Approved Project Figure 9 Evolution of Light Control Figure 10 Revised Project Photometric Analysis Figure 11 Noise Monitoring Locations Tables Table 1 Comparison of the Revised Project and the Approved Project... 6 Table 2 Estimated Peak Daily Construction Emissions in Pounds per Day Table 3 Total Construction Emissions and Localized Significance Threshold Table 4 Estimated Annual GHG Emissions Table 5 Summary of Football Game Off-Site Noise Monitoring Table Nighttime Event Intersection LOS With and Without Athletic Field Lighting iv SMMUSD MMHS Athletic Field Lighting MND Addendum

5 Introduction INTRODUCTION The information, analysis, and conclusions provided below to address the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form provide the basis for deciding whether an addendum or subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) to the Malibu High School Football Field Lighting Project (2009 MND) adopted by the Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD) on July 1, 2009, is the appropriate document to achieve environmental clearance. The District prepared a MND for the use of five 53-foot-high portable lights for sixteen evenings totaling no more than 62 hours annually. The District approved the Malibu High School Football Field Lighting Project by Resolution on July 1, This project was meant to officially authorize continued use of portable lights for the Malibu High School football program. The 2009 MND is hereby incorporated herein by this reference. Additional data was taken from the SMMUSD Malibu Middle and High School Campus Improvement Project EIR (2012 EIR) prepared by Atkins and certified in February According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a), an addendum shall be prepared if some changes or additions to a previously adopted MND are necessary but none of the conditions enumerated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(1) (3) calling for the preparation of subsequent MND have occurred. As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section (Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations): (a) When an EIR has been certified or negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (B) effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Changes to the Malibu High School Football Field Lighting Project (Approved Project) and regulatory conditions, described below under the Revised Project Description would fulfill none of the conditions SMMUSD MMHS Athletic Field Light MND Addendum 1

6 Introduction outlined in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162(a)(1) (3) as these changes would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects requiring major revisions to the adopted 2009 MND. Accordingly, this checklist provides the substantial evidence required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(e) to support the finding that a subsequent MND is not required and an addendum to the 2009 MND is the appropriate environmental document to address changes to the project. As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section (Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration): (a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. (b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. (c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration. (d) The decision making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project. (e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence. On the whole, the revised Malibu Middle and High School (MMHS) Athletic Field Lighting Project (Revised Project) would result in the installation and operation of four permanent light poles along the perimeter of the MMHS athletic field (Athletic Field) that would conform to lighting standards identified in the City of Malibu Local Coastal Program (LCP) Amendment Number MAL-MJ-1-11-A 1-11-A (LCP Amendment 1-11-A) approved by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) on October 5, Refer to CCC Staff Report W13A (Appendix A to this Addendum) regarding the approved LCP Amendment 1-11-A. The Revised Project differs from the Approved Project in that there would be four 70-foot-tall, permanent light poles each with twelve light fixtures equipped with Light-Structure Green (LSG) visors, compared to five 53-foot-tall, temporary light poles each with six light fixtures equipped with Total Light Control (TLC) visors. The Revised Project and Approved Project light fixtures would use the same 1,500-watt (1.56 Kilowatt per hour [KW/H]) Musco Z lamps. At the time of approval, the Approved Project was not subject to the lighting standards of the LCP Amendment 1-11-A because the LCP Amendment 1-11-A had not yet been approved. Additionally, since adoption of the 2009 MND, Coastal Development Permit (CDP) has been amended by CDP Amendment A4, adopted October 5, 2011, to eliminate Special Condition No. 6 (Athletic Field Lighting Restriction), which had prohibited lighting of the Athletic Field and adds Special Condition No. 9 (Certification of City of Malibu LCP Amendment 1-11-A), which requires that a separate CDP be issued by the City of Malibu in order for lighting to be permissible. Accordingly, the Revised Project no longer requires an amendment to CDP A4 but now does require a separate CDP permit. Refer to CCC Staff Report W17A (Appendix B to this Addendum) regarding the amendment to CDP As the 2009 MND found that lighting of the Athletic Field would result in no significant impacts, and the CCC determined that compliance with the LCP Amendment 1-11-A would ensure that Athletic Field 2 SMMUSD MMHS Athletic Field Lighting MND Addendum

7 Introduction lighting at MMHS would minimize adverse environmental impacts, the Revised Project would not result in new significant environmental effects or result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, and a supplemental MND would not be required. 1. Project title: Malibu Middle and High School Athletic Field Lighting Project 2. Lead agency name and address: Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District th Street Santa Monica, California Contact person and phone number: Janece L. Maez Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District th Street Santa Monica, California (310) ext Project location: Malibu Middle and High School 30251Morning View Drive Malibu, California Project sponsor s name and address: Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District th Street Santa Monica, California General plan designation: Public and Semi-Public Facilities 7. Zoning: Institutional 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 Revised Project includes the installation and operation of permanent Athletic Field lighting that would conform to the lighting standards identified in the City of Malibu LCP Amendment 1-11-A. The LCP Amendment 1-11-A states that lighting of the main sports field at MMHS may only be permitted if it complies with the following: SMMUSD MMHS Athletic Field Light MND Addendum 3

8 Introduction a. Lighting shall be minimized, directed downward, and shielded using the best available visor technology and pole height and design that minimize light spill, sky glow, and glare impacts to public views and wildlife to the maximum extent feasible. b. Lighting may only occur for a maximum of three (3) days in any calendar week and must be limited to the following time restrictions: i. During Pacific Standard Time (defined as of 2011 to be the first Sunday in November to the second Sunday in March), the lights may be illuminated no later than 7:30 p.m. except as indicated below. ii. From each September 1 through May 31 period, inclusive, the lights may only be illuminated after 7:30 p.m. up to 18 times, and then (a) only until 10:30 p.m., (b) never on consecutive nights, and (c) on no more than two nights in any given calendar week. iii. The lights may not be illuminated at any time between June 1 and August 31, inclusive, of any year. c. For lighting that is to be allowed during bird migration periods (Fall Migration: September through first week in November, and Spring Migration: Last week of March through May), an Avian Monitoring Plan, that is prepared by a qualified ornithologist/ecologist and reviewed and approved by the City Biologist, shall be required prior to issuance of the coastal development permit, and the permit shall be consistent with and require compliance with that plan. The plan shall, at a minimum, include the following elements: i. Monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified ornithologist/ecologist to assess potential adverse impacts to migratory and resident bird species. ii. The monitoring design and schedule shall include a paired monitoring design (i.e.[,] a night with lights immediately preceded or followed by a night without lights), and a monitoring frequency of once per week during any week when lights are operated during Fall and Spring migration periods for at least one year. If the monitoring results indicate that the one year monitoring period was a typical bird migration year with a typical range of atmospheric conditions and the main sports field lights have resulted in no adverse impacts upon birds, no additional monitoring may be required. If the monitoring results indicate otherwise, monitoring shall continue for an additional year(s) until a year of monitoring under typical conditions occurs and the consulting ornithologist obtains enough data to assess potential adverse impacts to migratory and resident bird species. iii. The description of observational monitoring activities shall include tallying species and numbers of birds observed within a 200 ft. sphere of the light standards and noting atmospheric conditions, bird behavior, and changes in bird behavior. iv. The monitoring plan shall specify a threshold for determining significant adverse impacts to migratory and resident bird species from field lights. v. Seasonal migration reports (Fall and Spring) of monitoring results shall be submitted to the City Biologist. However, the consulting ornithologist shall immediately notify the City should an adverse bird event related to the approved field lights occur at any time during the course of monitoring. The monitoring plan shall also include a provision for submission of a final monitoring report to the City Biologist at the end of the monitoring period. The approved Avian Monitoring Plan shall be implemented concurrent with the approved field lighting operations. If the Monitoring results indicate that the approved field lighting results in significant adverse impacts upon birds, the City shall require modification of the approved lighting schedule in order to ensure avoidance of the identified impacts. d. The applicant shall be required to submit a written statement agreeing to the above restrictions. 4 SMMUSD MMHS Athletic Field Lighting MND Addendum

9 Introduction LCP Amendment 1-11-A, approved by the CCC on October 5, 2011, authorizes limited athletic field lighting of the main sports field at Malibu High School (Athletic Field) only after the issuance of a CDP and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) by the City of Malibu, as well as the approval of an Avian Monitoring Plan. As illustrated in Figure 1 (Revised Project Athletic Field Lighting Plan), the Revised Project would consist of four 70-foot galvanized steel light poles that would be installed at approximately both of the 10-yard line of the Athletic Field outside of the track that circles the field. Each light pole would be approximately 19 inches in diameter at grade level, tapering off to approximately 10 inches diameter at the top., The revised light poles will be equipped with twelve LSG fixtures each with cross arms 12.3 feet in length, with fixture spaced 2.3 feet apart, and cross arms spaced at 29.5 inches apart. Figure 2 (Typical Light Poles and Fixtures) illustrates the appearance of light poles and fixtures similar to those proposed for the Revised Project. Each fixture would utilize a 1,500-watt Musco Z lamp. As required by the LCP Amendment 1-11-A, light fixtures would be outfitted with the best available visor technology. Specifically, each light fixture would be outfitted with an LSG 14-inch visor, as shown in Figure 3 (Revised Project Light Fixture Visor), 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 (Winfrey 2012b). The LSG visor would direct light downward, reducing the spill of light into the sky and reducing glare. As illustrated in Figure 1, the average illumination on the Athletic Field s surface would be 50.8 foot-candles, the maximum illumination would 63 foot-candles, and the minimum illumination would be 36 footcandles. Installation of the permanent light poles would begin in summer of 2012, and based upon on the construction information provided by the SMMUSD, trenching for installation of electrical conduits would occur first and 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. Table 1 (Comparison of the Revised Project and the Approved Project) provides a comparison of the Revised Project to the Approved Project MND An MND for the previous MHS Football Lighting Project, which evaluated the use of five 53-foot-high portable lights for sixteen evenings totaling no more than 62 hours annually during football season (September to December), was prepared in The District adopted this MND and approved the MHS Football Lighting Project on July 1, 2009 (Approved Project). The District then submitted an application to the CCC in August 2009 to amend CDP No to eliminate Special Condition No. 6 (Athletic Field Lighting Restriction) thereby authorizing the Approved Project. The District s application to amend CDP No was rejected by the CCC on October 8, SMMUSD MMHS Athletic Field Light MND Addendum 5

10 Introduction Table 1 Comparison of the Revised Project and the Approved Project Feature Revised Project Approved Project Installation Type Permanent Temporary Number of Light Poles 4 5 Height of Light Poles 70 feet 53 feet Number of Light Fixtures per Light Pole 12 fixtures 6 fixtures Total Light Fixtures 48 fixtures 30 fixtures Type of Light Fixture Visors Light Structure Green Total Light Control Maximum Number of Nights Annually That Lights May Be Illuminated 18 nights until 10:30 PM between September 1 and May 31 Up to 3 days a week no later than 7:30 PM during Pacific Standard Time 16 nights during Football Season (September December) Maximum Number of Hours Annually That Light May Be Illuminated 125 hours 62 hours Type of Permitting Required CDP and CUP CDP Amendment After the CCC s rejection of the District s application, the City of Malibu began developing LCP Amendment 1-11-A to allow lighting of the main sports fields at public high schools in the Institutional Zone as a conditional use. After the City of Malibu approved the proposed LCP Amendment 1-11-A, the City of Malibu then submitted the proposed LCP Amendment 1-11-A to the CCC for final approval. As previously discussed, LCP Amendment 1-11-A, with modifications, was approved by the CCC on October 5, Simultaneously, the CCC amended CDP to eliminate Special Condition No. 6 (Athletic Field Lighting Restriction), which prohibited lighting of the Athletic Field and added Special Condition No. 9 (Certification of City of Malibu LCP Amendment 1-11-A), which requires that a separate CDP be issued by the City of Malibu in order for lighting to be permissible. With the CCC s approval of the LCP and CDP amendments, the District must obtain a CDP and a CUP for this Revised Project, prior to its implementation. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting (briefly describe the project s surroundings): The Revised Project site remains the main athletic field (Athletic Field) on the MMHS Campus (Campus) located in the Zuma Beach area of the City of Malibu; refer Figure 4 (Regional and Site Location Map) and Figure 5 (Aerial View of MMHS Athletic Field). The surrounding land uses include properties that are zoned Rural Residential (RR) and developed primarily with large homes on lots 2 acres or more in size, as well as properties zoned Institutional. To the north are single-family homes. To the west and adjacent to the campus is Cabrillo Elementary School, while the Malibu Equestrian Center leases the district-owned property located to the east of the Campus, both of these uses are zoned for institutional uses. To the south, across Morning View Drive, are the Malibu United Methodist Church and Nursery School, and large homes. Zuma Beach and the Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) are located approximately 1,000 feet and 1,500 feet south of the project site, respectively. 6 SMMUSD MMHS Athletic Field Lighting MND Addendum

11 QTY LOCATION SIZE EQUIPMENT LIST FOR AREAS SHOWN Pole Luminaires GRADE ELEVATION MOUNTING HEIGHT LAMP TYPE QTY / POLE THIS GRID 4 F1-F4 70' - 70' 1500W MZ TOTALS OTHER GRIDS F3 105' 105' F4 140' 140' CONSTANT ILLUMINATION HORIZONTAL FOOTCANDLES Entire Grid No. of Target Points: 72 Average: 50.8 Maximum: 63 (indicated in green) Minimum: 36 (indicated in red) Avg/Min: 1.41 Max/Min: 1.73 UG (Adjacent Pts): 1.38 CV: 4 Average Lamp Tilt Factor: Number of Luminaires: 48 Avg KW over 5,000: Max KW: F# Light Pole Locations Pole Locations (are relative to 0,0 reference points+) MMHS Field Lighting MND Addendum Source: MUSCO, ' F2 105' ' 140' F1 0' 80' 160' SCALE IN FEET Figure 1 Revised Project Athletic Field Lighting Plan

12

13 Source: MUSCO, Figure 2 Typical Light Poles and Fixtures MMHS Field Lighting MND Addendum

14

15 Source: MUSCO, Figure 3 Revised Project Light Fixture Visor MMHS Field Lighting MND Addendum

16

17 PROJECT LOCATION PROJECT LOCATION Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District Source: Microsoft Streets and Trip, basemap, mi SCALE IN MILES Figure 4 Regional and Site Location Map

18 Introduction The Athletic Field is located at an elevation of approximately 150 feet above sea level, above most development on the Campus. Adjacent athletic facilities to the west and north, as well as the future 150- space parking lot to be developed as part of the approved MMHS Campus Improvements Project to the east are located at different elevations above the main campus. The MMHS Campus Improvements Project, which is not part of the Revised Project, involves the partial redevelopment of the Campus, which includes one new two-story replacement building for classrooms, a library, and administration offices; renovation of existing classroom Building E and outdoor spaces; a new drop-off/pick-up lane; a new lighted 150-space parking lot and access road; two new tennis courts; synthetic turf for the Athletic Field; and improved waste water systems. The 150-space parking lot would be located next to and above the Athletic Field on the eastern edge of the Campus in a previously undeveloped area. The Revised Project, which would be completed during the summer of 2012, would be implemented prior to commencement of the MMHS Campus Improvements Project. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): City of Malibu for approval of a Coastal Development Permit and a Conditional Use Permit 14 SMMUSD MMHS Athletic Field Lighting MND Addendum

19 Athletic Field MMHS Field Lighting MND Addendum Source: Google Earth Pro, basemap, 2010; Atkins, NOT TO SCALE Figure 5 Aerial View of MMHS Athletic Field

20

21 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 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 revised initial evaluation: I find that the revised 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 revised project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the revised 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 revised 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 revised project, nothing further is required. Signature Janece L. Maez Name April 5, 2012 Date Assistant Superintendent - Business and Fiscal Services, Chief Financial Officer Title SMMUSD MMHS Athletic Field Light MND Addendum 17

22 Evaluation of Environmental s EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except No answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A No 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 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 is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more Potentially entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) Negative Declaration: Less Than With Mitigation Incorporated applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from Potentially to a Less-Than-. 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) s 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 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. 18 SMMUSD MMHS Athletic Field Lighting MND Addendum

23 SECTION I. Aesthetics Potentially Less Than w/mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- No ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES I. AESTHETICS Would the project: (a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Discussion The Athletic Field is not located in the viewshed of a designated vista point. The nearest vista point recognized in the City of Malibu s General Plan Conservation Element is the Point Dume Vista Point, which does not afford views of the Revised Project site or surrounding neighborhood. Other protected scenic vistas in the City of Malibu, according to LUP Policy 6.2, include views of the ocean and other scenic areas from public viewing areas, which include public roads, trails, parklands and beaches, considered to be public viewing areas. Public viewing areas in the vicinity of the Revised Project site include nearby roads and trails, including Morning View Drive (also a designated trail), Merritt Drive, Busch Drive and Pathway (a roadway and designated trail), Clover Heights Avenue, among other roadways, and nearby trails including the Equestrian School Trail (located on the Campus), and Busch Pathway. Views afforded from public viewing areas, located in elevations equal to or greater than the Revised Project site and to the north and east, which excludes Morning View Drive (because it is at the base of the slope and bound by development), consists mostly of rolling hills, ridgelines, vegetation, structures, and panoramic views of the ocean and the Santa Monica Mountains, in the horizon. Distant ridgelines, mountains, and the ocean typically dominate views. The Revised Project site is part of this viewshed from a number of public viewing areas to the north of the Revised Project site that offer scenic vistas of the ocean and mountains. As such the Revised Project site is located within a scenic area as defined by LUP Policy 6.4 and is therefore subject to all policies of the LUP related visual impacts on scenic areas. From most public viewing areas, including the seven representative public viewing points shown in Figure 6a (Public Viewing Points 1 and 2) through Figure 6d (Public Viewing Point 7), views of development on the Campus is typically limited to building rooftops or athletic fields, including the Revised Project Site. A map identifying the location of each public viewing point is provided as Figure 6 (Public Viewing Point Location Map).The presence of a low ridge located immediately southeast of the Revised Project site, the undulating hillsides in the area, as well as the split-level design of the Campus with buildings terraced down the slope, dense vegetation in the surrounding area, and the dominance of background views of the ocean, allows for the Campus and all its associated features to blend in with the natural environment of the area and does not interfere with scenic views of the ocean or the mountains from public viewing areas. The 2009 MND found that use of five 53-foot-high portable lights to be located on the Athletic Field during football seasons (September to December) would result in less-than-significant impacts to scenic SMMUSD MMHS Athletic Field Light MND Addendum 19

24 Environmental Issues Potentially Less Than w/mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- No vistas because light poles would not be highly visible from the surrounding area, would blend into the existing landscape, and would not block views of the beach, ocean, mountains, canyons or natural habitat areas. This was demonstrated in Exhibits 14, 16, 20, 22, and 24 of the 2009 MND which illustrate how the approved light poles on the Athletic Field would appear from six public viewing points in the area. The Revised Project would result in the installation of four, 70-foot-tall light poles each approximately 19 inches in diameter at grade level, tapering off to approximately 10 inches diameter at the top. The revised light poles will be equipped with twelve LSG fixtures each with cross arms 12.3 feet in length, with fixture spaced 2.3 feet apart, and cross arms spaced at 29.5 inches apart. Figure 2 illustrates the appearance of light poles and fixtures similar to those proposed for the Revised Project. Figure 7 (Context Sections: Approved Project Compared to Revised Project) illustrates how the height of the Approved Project and Revised Project light poles relate to the surrounding area in the context of elevation and development. As can be seen in Figure 7, the 17-foot increase in height under the Revised Project compared to the Approved Project is not significant in the context of elevations in the surrounding area. Figure 7 also illustrates that views of from residences at higher elevations would not be obstructed as a result of the Revised 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 Athletic Field. Based on Figure 7 and because of the panoramic and dominant nature of views of the ocean and mountains afforded from public viewing areas as illustrated in Figure 6A through Figure 6D, the presence of a low ridge located immediately southeast of the Revised Project site that partially obscures views of the Athletic Field, as well as the presence of surrounding development, trees and vegetation, the four 70-foot light poles and associated fixtures proposed would blend into the existing natural environment and would not interfere with scenic views of the ocean or the mountains from public viewing areas. As such, implementation of the Revised Project would not significantly obstruct views of the ocean, mountains, and other scenic features such as ridges, hillsides, and vegetation. Although proposed light poles and fixtures would be visible from public viewing points, views would continue to be widely available from all selected public viewing points, consistent with CCA Section 30251, which requires that all new development be sited to preserve views of scenic resources. Additionally, according to the CCC Staff Report W13A for the LCP Amendment 1-11-A, given the topography of the Revised Project site and surrounding area, and the distance from the field and nearby public viewing area, light poles at the Athletic Field are not expected to significantly block or obscure public views of the ocean or mountains during the daytime. The CCC concluded in the staff report that operation of field lights in compliance with the LCP Amendment 1-11-A would not significantly impact views of natural landforms, the beach, and the ocean and would minimize impacts on scenic areas visible from scenic roads or public viewing areas to the maximum extent feasible. The CUP and CDP for the Revised Project would only be issued if field lighting complies with the lighting standards of the LCP Amendment 1-11-A and the applicant submits a written statement agreeing to these standards. Therefore, based on the analysis provided above and the findings of the CCC regarding the LCP 20 SMMUSD MMHS Athletic Field Lighting MND Addendum

25 4* MMHS Field Lighting MND Addendum Source: Google Earth Pro,basemap, 2010; Atkins, Via Cabrillo Street is a private road, but has been included as Public Viewing Point * because it is the location of the nearest light sensitive receptor to the Proposed Project site. Public Viewing Point Location Public Viewing Point Direction SCALE IN FEET Figure 6 Public Viewing Point Locations

26

27 Public Viewing Point 1: View looking Southwest from the intersection of Merritt Drive and Busch Drive MMHS Field Lighting MND Addendum Public Viewing Point 2: View looking West from mid-portion of Merritt Drive Source: Atkins, Figure 6a Public Viewing Points 1 and 2

28

29 Public Viewing Point 3: View looking North from Morning View Drive just south of the MMHS Campus MMHS Field Lighting MND Addendum Public Viewing Point 4: View looking East from Via Cabrillo Street* Source: Atkins, Figure 6b Public Viewing Points 3 and 4* * Via Cabrillo Street is a private road, but has been included as Public Viewing Point because it is the location of the nearest light sensitive receptor to the Proposed Project site.

30

31 Public Viewing Point 5: View looking South from Clover Heights Avenue Cul de Sac MMHS Field Lighting MND Addendum Public Viewing Point 6: View looking Southwest from Harvester Road west of Busch Drive Source: Atkins, Figure 6c Public Viewing Points 5 and 6

32

33 Public Viewing Point 7: View looking North from Zuma Beach at intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Morning View Drive MMHS Field Lighting MND Addendum Source: Atkins, Figure 6d Public Viewing Point 7

34

35 Context Sections, Approved Project: Five, 53 Foot Light Poles MMHS Field Lighting MND Addendum Source: MUSCO, Context Sections, Revised Project: Four, 70 Foot Light Poles Figure 7 Context Sections: Approved Project Compared to Revised Project

36 Environmental Issues Potentially Less Than w/mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- No Amendment 1-11-A, the Revised Project would result in a less-than-significant impact to scenic vistas. As such, no significant new impact or significant increase in the severity of a previously described impact would occur, and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances, or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the adoption of the 2009 MND with respect to scenic vistas. (b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Discussion The Revised Project site is not located within the viewshed or corridor of a state-designated scenic highway. The only road in the City of Malibu that has been officially designated as an eligible scenic highway by Caltrans is PCH located 0.25 mile southwest of the Revised Project site. No scenic resources are currently located on the Revised Project site. As illustrated in Figure 1, light poles would be installed along the outside perimeter of the Athletic Field. No trees, rock outcropping, or historical buildings would be damaged, altered or removed as a result of the Revised Project. Accordingly, impacts to scenic resources would be less than significant. As such, no significant new impact or significant increase in the severity of a previously described impact would occur, and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances, or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the adoption of the 2009 MND with respect to scenic resources. (c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Discussion The Revised Project would result in the installation of four permanent light poles reaching 70 feet in height on the Athletic Field. The analysis provided in the 2009 MND contemplated the use of five temporary light poles reaching 53 feet in height for use during the MMHS football season only. Although the permanent light poles would be 17 feet taller than the temporary light poles previously analyzed, due to the topography of the Revised Project site and surrounding area that slopes towards the oceans allowing for panoramic views of the ocean and distant mountains, the Athletic Field s distance from other uses, and the presence of tall palm trees and other vegetation in the vicinity of the Athletic Field, the increase in height from 53 feet to 70 feet would not be distinguishable from the surrounding area. To better illustrate this point, Figure 7 has been provided. Figure 7 identifies the elevations of the surrounding area and depicts the height of the Approved Project and Revised Project light poles. As can be seen in Figure 7, the 17-foot increase in height under the Revised Project is not significant in the context of elevations in the surrounding area. The Revised Project site is the Athletic Field located in developed area of Malibu. As stated in the CCC Staff Report W13A for the LCP Amendment 1-11-A, lighting of a main sports field is the type of development that is normally associated with a high school campus. Accordingly, the CCC Staff Report 32 SMMUSD MMHS Athletic Field Lighting MND Addendum

37 SECTION I. Aesthetics Potentially Less Than w/mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- No W13A concluded that the location of the Campus in a developed and built out area of the City of Malibu 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. Based on the CCC s conclusion, and due to the limited visibility of the MMHS Athletic Field from public viewing areas (as illustrated in Figure 6a through Figure 6d), the revised light poles would be compatible with the existing visual character of the Campus and its surroundings. As shown in 2009 MND Exhibit 8, provided in this Addendum as Figure 8 (Areas of Light Pole Visibility for the Approved Project), light poles would be visible from the surrounding area during daylight hours. However, because Figure 8 uses GIS technology that considers topography but does not account for existing development and the natural environment, as described on page 19 of the 2009 MND, Figure 8 presents a worst case scenario and it is reasonable to assume that the visibility of the light poles would be far more limited than illustrated. While the Revised Project would result in the installation of one less light pole and the height of light poles would be 17 feet taller compared to the Approved Project, light poles at the Athletic Field would blend in with the existing landscape, are visually compatible with the existing character of the area, and would not significantly obstruct views of the ocean or the mountains during the daytime because of the panoramic and dominant nature of views of the ocean and mountains afforded from public viewing areas, regardless of the increase in height and number of fixtures. Accordingly, the installation of the revised lighting at the Athletic Field would not degrade the visual character and quality of the Revised Project site and surrounding area and this impact would be less than significant. As such, no significant new impact or significant increase in the severity of a previously described impact would occur, and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances, or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the adoption of the 2009 MND with respect to visual quality and character, this impact would remain less than significant. (d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The Athletic Field is not currently lit at night. Accordingly, implementation of the Revised Project, which involves the installation of four permanent light poles at the Athletic Field, would create a new source of light and glare in the Revised Project vicinity. As described in the Revised Project Description above, the revised lighting would be required to comply with the lighting standards outlined in the LCP Amendment 1-11-A through a City issued CDP and CUP, both of which are required prior to installation of the lights. Specifically, night-time lighting may occur no more than three calendar days per week and no later than 7:30 PM during Pacific Standard Time, except that the Athletic Field may be illuminated until 10:30 PM between September 1 and May 31 for a maximum of eighteen nights, on no more than two nights per calendar week and never on consecutive nights. This would result in the lights being utilized for approximately 125 hours per school year. Athletic Field lighting would be prohibited from June 1 through August 31. Similar to the Approved Project, the revised field lights will create some illumination/sky glow when operated at night, particularly along the coast where foggy conditions are common, that may be visible from Zuma Beach County Park to the south and National Park Service SMMUSD MMHS Athletic Field Light MND Addendum 33

38 Environmental Issues Potentially Less Than w/mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- No land/zuma Ridge Trail to the north. Given the topography, sky glow from field lights is not expected to be visible from Pacific Coast Highway. Although sky glow would be visible from these public viewing areas, the field lights would be directed onto the field and not represent a light source that would be directly visible from the public viewing areas. As required by the LCP Amendment 1-11-A, the revised field lighting would be minimized, directed downward, and shielded using the best available visor technology and pole height and design to minimize light spill, sky glow, and glare impacts to public views and wildlife to the maximum extent feasible. Specifically, each light fixture would be outfitted with Musco s LSG 14-inch visor, shown in Figure 3, 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 (Winfrey 2012b). The LSG visor would direct light downward, reducing the spill light, sky glow and glare. The LSG visor reduces escape light by 30 percent over the TLC visor included in the Approved Project (Winfrey 2012b). The LSG visor utilizes the best available visor technology. (Winfrey 2012b) 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 (Appendix C to this Addendum) and a comparison of photometric plans, the increased height of the revised field lighting would also reduce spill lighting and sky glow compared to the Approved Project because the increased height of the light poles allows for a steeper vertical aiming angle for light fixtures which reduces spill light and glare (Musco Sports Lighting LLC 2011). 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 (Musco Sports Lighting LLC 2011). Additionally, the 2009 MND identified mitigation measure MM A-1, which requires the District to equip the lighting with appropriate visors to reduce glare and sky glow, and mitigation measure MM A-2, which requires lights to be designed to reduce light and glare to the maximum extent feasible, to reduce light and glare impacts to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures would also apply to the Revised Project. In addition to the Revised Project, two other permanent light pole options were considered for the MMHS athletic field: four 80-foot-tall light poles and six 70-foot-tall light poles. Based on review of photometric diagrams of the Revised Project and consideration of the two other light pole options, it was determined that each of these lighting options would achieve lighting levels on the athletic field that meet the same minimum lighting criteria recommended for athletic field use and would minimize spill light so as not to affect light sensitive receptors in the surrounding area (SMMUSD 2012b). The four 80-foot-tall light pole option would reduce spill light outside of the desired area to the greatest degree compared to the Revised Project and the six 70-foot-tall light pole option, because the increased height allows for a steeper vertical aiming angel, which reduces light spill and glare (Musco Sports Lighting LLC 2011). However, the 80-foot-tall light poles would be most visible from the surrounding area. The six 70-foottall light poles would also be more visible from the surrounding area, compared to the Revised Project due to the additional light poles. Accordingly, the Revised Project would be the least visible from the surrounding area, minimizing impacts to public views, while reducing light spill and glare to a level that will not affect light-sensitive receptors in the surrounding area. Light poles lower than 70 feet in height 34 SMMUSD MMHS Athletic Field Lighting MND Addendum

39 MMHS Field Lighting MND Addendum NOT TO SCALE Source: Atkins, Figure 8 Areas of Light Pole Visibility for the Approved Project

40

41 SECTION I. Aesthetics Potentially Less Than w/mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- No were not considered, because they do not provide uniform lighting levels throughout the athletic field, which is recommended for athletic use. Additionally, light poles lower than 70 feet in height would generate more spill light outside of the desired area, because the light fixtures must be angled up to reach the middle of the field compared to taller light poles, which would result in a greater impact to the surrounding area. In consideration of the information provided above, the selection of taller light poles would reduce spill light compared to the Revised Project but would have a greater impact to public views due to increased visibility associated with the height of the light poles. Accordingly, the Revised Project would minimize light spill, sky glow, and glare impacts to public views and wildlife to the maximum extent feasible, consistent with LCP Amendment 1-11-A. The light fixtures previously analyzed were to be outfitted with TLC 12-inch visors, which was the best available visor technology at the time the 2009 MND was prepared. Based on the photometric and visual analysis of field lighting provided in the MND, the CCC concluded on page 20 of Staff Report W13a for the LCP Amendment 1-11-A that lighting of the Athletic Field per the Approved Project would have no discernable impact beyond 450 feet. Since the 2009 MND was prepared, the LSG visor to be utilized by the Revised Project became available, which provides improved control compared to the TLC visor. The difference between TLC and LSG visors is illustrated in Figure 9 (Evolution of Light Control). LSG visors will reduce escape light by approximately 30 percent compared to the TLC visors (Winfrey 2012b). Figure 10 (Photometric Analysis) depicts the spill light from the revised lights, which would be equipped with LSG 14-inch visors that would direct light downward, reducing the spill light into the sky and reducing glare. Visors proposed for individual light fixtures are depicted in Figure 2 and Figure 3. As shown in Figure 10, the revised lighting designed and operated in compliance with the LCP Amendment 1-11-A and implementation of mitigation measures MM A-1 and MM A-2 would not cast light onto nearby sensitive receptors and no light would be received beyond approximately 300 feet from the field. As such, the Revised Project would reduce spill light compared to the Approved Project. Additionally, the CCC concluded on page 22 of Staff Report W13a for the LCP Amendment 1-11-A, that operation of field lights in compliance with lighting standards of the LCP Amendment 1-11-A would not result in significant light and glare impacts because night lighting would be confined to a limited number hours, nights per week, and nights per year. Accordingly, compliance with the LCP Amendment 1-11-A and implementation of mitigation measures MM A-1 and MM A-2 would ensure that impacts associated with nighttime lighting remain a less-than-significant level under the Revised Project. As such, no significant new impact or significant increase in the severity of a previously described impact would occur, and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances, or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the adoption of the 2009 MND with respect to light and glare. MM A-1 Prior to the operation of night lighting, the District shall ensure that spill and glare control fixtures be added to each light. The spill and glare control fixtures utilized shall be capable of reducing spill, glare, and sky glow from the football lights. SMMUSD MMHS Athletic Field Light MND Addendum 37

42 Source: MUSCO, Figure 9 Evolution of Light Control MMHS Field Lighting MND Addendum

43 LEGEND F4 F LIGHTING LEVEL IN FOOT CANDLES 135 LOCATION OF LIGHTING MEASUREMENT 115 AREA OF PROJECTED LIGHT ABOVE FOOT CANDLES 300 FROM EDGE OF TRACK LOCATION OF LIGHT POLE F4 LIGHT POLE NUMBER F MMHS Field Lighting MND Addendum F Source: MUSCO, ' 150' 300' SCALE IN FEET Figure 10 Photometric Analysis

44

45 SECTION II. Agriculture/Forestry Resources Potentially Less Than w/mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- No MM A-2 Field lighting shall be designed to minimize visibility of light source and glare impacts by directing lighting toward the sports field area and not illuminating areas outside the project boundaries. The light control visors shall be examined to ensure the maximum benefit of light and glare reduction. Prior to the commencement of night lighting for football use, the District shall ensure that the lights have been tested by a qualified engineer. II. AGRICULTURE/FORESTRY RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) 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? Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or with a Williamson Act contract? 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))? Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to nonforest use? 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 The Revised Project site is currently developed as an athletic field on a school 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 institutional does not allow for agricultural uses and the Revised Project site is not designated Prime, Unique, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Accordingly, the Revised Project would have no impact on Agricultural Resources either on the project site or surrounding area. As such, no significant new impact or significant increase in the severity of a previously described impact would occur, and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances, or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the adoption of the 2009 MND with respect to agricultural resources. SMMUSD MMHS Athletic Field Light MND Addendum 41

46 Environmental Issues Potentially Less Than w/mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- No 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 The Revised Project would have no impact on the applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan. The City of Malibu is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin). Air emissions in the Basin are regulated by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), similar to impacts evaluated in the 2009 MND. The SCAQMD is required, pursuant to the Clean Air Act, to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment. Strategies to achieve these emissions reductions are developed in the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) prepared by SCAQMD for the region. The AQMP is based on Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) population projections as well as land use designations and population projections included in General Plans for those communities located within the Basin. Population growth is typically associated with the construction of residential units or large employment centers. A project would be inconsistent with the AQMP if it would result in population and/or employment growth that exceeds growth estimates for the area. The Revised Project is intended to provide permanent field lighting at the Athletic Field, and therefore, the Revised Project would not result in additional student capacity at the middle school or high school, nor include the development of any residential or commercial uses. As there is no significant new impact or significant increase in the severity of a previously described impact would occur, and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances, or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the adoption of the 2009 MND with respect to conflicting with the AQMP, no impact would occur. (b) (c) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Discussion The 2009 MND identified use of temporary lighting at the Athletic Field during the football season with regards to violation of air quality standards or contribution to existing or projected air quality violation would result in no impact. This was primarily due to the fact that no construction activity would be 42 SMMUSD MMHS Athletic Field Lighting MND Addendum

47 SECTION III. Air Quality Potentially Less Than w/mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- No associated with the provision of temporary lighting, and operational emissions would be limited to minor emissions from the two 50-kilowatt diesel generators used to power the temporary lights. The Revised Project would involve the installation of four permanent light poles, which would include construction activities. Installation would begin in summer of 2012, and based upon on the construction information provided by the SMMUSD, trenching for installation of electrical conduits would occur first and 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 D to this Addendum. For on-road vehicular emissions, CalEEMod utilizes the EMFAC2007 emission rates that have been developed by the California Air Resources Board (California ARB). Equipment for each phase of construction activity is based upon information provided by SMMUSD and is included as Appendix D to this Addendum. 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 NO X (oxides of nitrogen) 550 lbs/day of CO (carbon monoxide) 150 lbs/day of SO X (oxides of sulfur) 150 lbs/day of PM 10 (respirable 10-micron-diameter particulate matter) 55 lbs/day of PM 2.5 (respirable 2.5-micron-diameter particulate matter) Operation 55 pounds per day (lbs/day) of ROG (reactive organic gases) 55 lbs/day of NO X (oxides of nitrogen) 550 lbs/day of CO (carbon monoxide) 150 lbs/day of SO X (oxides of sulfur) 150 lbs/day of PM 10 (respirable 10-micron-diameter particulate matter) 55 lbs/day of PM 2.5 (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 2 (Estimated Peak Daily Construction Emissions in Pounds per Day). The CalEEMod worksheets that show the specific data used to calculate the SMMUSD MMHS Athletic Field Light MND Addendum 43

48 Environmental Issues Potentially Less Than w/mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- No construction emissions are included as Appendix D to this Addendum. As shown in Table 2, 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 NO X emissions would be from construction equipment and off-site vehicle trips, while the primary source of PM 10 and PM 2.5 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 PM 10 and PM 2.5 emissions generation would be higher, but still below the SCAQMD threshold of significance. Table 2 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 Trenching On Site Off Site Maximum Daily Emissions SCAQMD Threshold Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No Paving On Site Off Site Maximum Daily Emissions SCAQMD Threshold Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No SOURCE: Atkins (2011) (CalEEMod outputs available as Appendix D to this Addendum). Assumes compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 and LAUSD BMPs, 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 Revised Project would not result in new vehicle trips. Rather, implementation of the Revised Project would shift existing traffic that occurs for MMHS athletic events, such as football and soccer games from an afternoon start time to an evening start time. Similarly, the Revised Project would not include the 44 SMMUSD MMHS Athletic Field Lighting MND Addendum

49 SECTION III. Air Quality Potentially Less Than w/mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- No 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 Revised Project would not result in significant operational emissions and no SCAQMD threshold would be exceeded. The Revised 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 Addendum, 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. Similarly, operation of the Revised Project would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold for operation. While the circumstances under which the Revised Project would be undertaken have changed due to the associated construction activity, no significant new impact or significant increase in the severity of a previously described impact would occur, and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances, or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the adoption of the 2009 MND 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 The SCAQMD divides the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) into forty source receptor areas (SRAs). The City of Malibu is located within SRA 2, which covers the Northwest Los Angeles County Coastal area. In addition to the daily air emission thresholds established by SCAQMD, potential localized impacts for certain criteria air pollutants with regard to Revised Project-related emissions are calculated using a separate method. Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. The LST methodology is described in Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology and is based on LST tables published by SCAQMD (October 21, 2009); both documents are available on the SCAQMD website. LSTs are only applicable for construction emissions of CO, NO 2, PM 10, and PM 2.5. LSTs do not apply to emissions during operation of the Project. The LST mass rate look-up tables provided by the SCAQMD allow one to determine if the daily emissions for proposed construction or operational activities could result in significant localized air quality impacts. If the calculated on-site emissions for the proposed construction or operational activities are below the LST emission levels found on the LST mass rate look-up tables, then the proposed construction or operation activity is not significant for air quality. The LST mass rate look-up tables are applicable to the following pollutants only: oxides of nitrogen (NO X ), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter less than 10 microns in aerodynamic diameter SMMUSD MMHS Athletic Field Light MND Addendum 45

50 Environmental Issues Potentially Less Than w/mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- No (PM 10 ). Table entries are derived based on the location of the activity (i.e., the source/receptor area); the emission rates of NO X, CO, PM 10 and PM 2.5 ; and the distance to the nearest exposed individual. The LST methodology presents mass emission rates for each SRA, project sizes of 1, 2, and 5 acres, and nearest receptor distances of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. For project sizes between the values given, or with receptors at distances between the given receptors, the methodology uses linear interpolation to determine the thresholds. Sensitive receptors include land uses that contain a high concentration of sensitive population groups, such as residences, schools, daycare centers, and medical and recreational facilities. Sensitive population groups are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the population at large. The adjacent residential uses located to the northwest and east of the Athletic Field, and the student population at the MMHS site itself would be considered local sensitive receptors that could be impacted by emissions generated by the Revised Project. Sensitive receptors could be exposed to temporary construction emissions, such as fugitive dust, combustion emissions, and diesel particulate matter. For the purposes of this analysis the closest MMHS classroom was estimated to be approximately 50 meters from the Athletic Field; the closest residential uses to the northwest were estimated to be approximately 165 meters from the Athletic Field; and the closest residential uses to the east were estimated to be approximately 364 meters from the Athletic Field. As construction activities would not disturb more than 1 acre of soil, construction emissions are therefore comparable to the LSTs identified in the look-up tables. Total worst-case construction emissions for the Revised Project are included in Table 3 (Total Construction Emissions and Localized Significance Thresholds). Table 3 compares the total worst-case construction emissions to the LSTs for SRA 1, where the Revised Project is located. As shown in Table 3, the Revised Project would not result in substantial pollution concentration at sensitive receptors during construction activities. Construction of the Revised Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of criteria pollutants. Table 3 Total Construction Emissions and Localized Significance Threshold Maximum On-Site Thresholds of Quantity of Pollutant Pollutant Construction Emissions Significance a Exceeding Threshold? CO lbs/day 0 No NO lbs/day 0 No PM lbs/day 0 No PM lbs/day 0 No SOURCE: SCAQMD (2011). a. Thresholds of Significance are measured at 50 meters from the Revised Project site as that was the distance of the closest sensitive receptors. While the circumstances under which the Revised Project would be undertaken have changed due to the associated construction activity, no significant new impact or significant increase in the severity of a previously described impact would occur, and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances, or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the adoption of the 46 SMMUSD MMHS Athletic Field Lighting MND Addendum

51 SECTION IV. Biological Resources Potentially Less Than w/mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- No 2009 MND with respect to exposure of 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 The Revised Project would not result in objectionable odors. Emissions from construction equipment, such as diesel exhaust, and volatile organic compounds from architectural coatings and paving activities may generate objectionable odors; however, these odors would be temporary in nature and are not expected to affect a substantial number of people. While the circumstances under which the Revised Project would be undertaken have changed due to the associated construction activity, no significant new impact or significant increase in the severity of a previously described impact would occur, and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances, or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the adoption of the 2009 MND with respect to objectionable odors and no impact would occur. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: (a) (b) 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? 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? Discussion The Revised Project would result in the installation of permanent field lighting at the Athletic Field on the Campus that would be operated in compliance with the LCP Amendment 1-11-A, which limits the number hours, nights per week, and nights per year field light may be used and requires the implementation of an Avian Monitoring Plan. According to the CCC Staff Report W13a for the LCP Amendment 1-11-A, based on review of past biological surveys and inventories conducted at the Campus and a survey conducted by the CCC s Staff Ecologist, the Athletic Field is not located in, or adjacent to any areas that are considered environmentally sensitive habitat (ESHA) or that support special status plant or animal species. The only ESHA identified within the study area is the intermittent blue-line stream containing highly degraded riparian habitat located approximately 600 feet northwest of the Revised Project Site. Although other areas in the vicinity of the Revised Project may have native habitat value, such as the black walnut trees SMMUSD MMHS Athletic Field Light MND Addendum 47

52 Environmental Issues Potentially Less Than w/mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- No that span an ephemeral stream/drainage near Merritt Drive and undisturbed coastal sage scrub to the east of the Athletic Field, the CCC s Staff Ecologist determined that these areas do not rise to the level of ESHA. Based on these findings, the CCC concluded that compliance with the LCP Amendment 1-11-A would ensure that the proposed lighting at the Athletic Field would not adversely impact an ESHA, an ESHA buffer or increase illumination of any ESHA and would minimize adverse impacts to biologically significant wildlife and coastal resources. This conclusion is supported by Figure 9, which illustrates that light produced by the Revised Project would not be received beyond approximately 450 feet from the Athletic Field and would, therefore, not result in the illumination of an ESHA. Accordingly, impacts to special status species and riparian habitat would be less than significant with implementation of the Revised Project. As such, no significant new impact or significant increase in the severity of a previously described impact would occur, and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances, or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the adoption of the 2009 MND with respect to special-status species and riparian habitat. (c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No federally protected wetlands are located on the project site. However, an unnamed ESHA stream located approximately 600 feet northwest of the Athletic Field. This unnamed stream potentially fits the definition of a water of the U.S. and is being treated as such in this Addendum. The Revised Project has been designed to avoid impacts, including light spill, to this unnamed ESHA stream and no direct activity would occur within its boundaries. As shown in Figure 9, light produced by the Revised Project would not be received beyond approximately 450 feet from the Athletic Field, and would therefore not reach the unnamed stream. Accordingly, the Revised Project would have no impact on federally protected wetlands. As such, no significant new impact or significant increase in the severity of a previously described impact would occur, and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances, or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the adoption of the 2009 MND with respect to wetlands. (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? Surveys of the Campus prepared for the 2009 MND as well as the 2012 FEIR did not identify any major or regional wildlife corridor/travel route. The Campus is surrounded by rural residential development that includes large plots (over 2 acres) with single-family homes, access roads, and utility infrastructure, which isolates habitats located within the Campus (such as the ESHA and the undisturbed coastal sage scrub adjacent to the Athletic Field) from large expanses of similar habitats in undeveloped areas elsewhere along the Topanga Malibu region. There is localized movement, as ground-dwelling animals forage for food, mate, and move between habitat patches within the Revised Project site and surrounding 48 SMMUSD MMHS Athletic Field Lighting MND Addendum

53 SECTION IV. Biological Resources Potentially Less Than w/mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- No area (Atkins 2012). However, CCC Staff Report W13a determined that Athletic Field lighting has the potential to impact migratory birds and nesting and rooting raptors and owls. In order to minimize impact to night migrating birds and breeding and nesting raptors, when night lighting is permitted during bird migration periods, the LCP Amendment 1-11-A requires the preparation of an Avian Monitoring Plan as follows: c. For lighting that is to be allowed during bird migration periods (Fall Migration: September through first week in November, and Spring Migration: Last week of March through May), an Avian Monitoring Plan, that is prepared by a qualified ornithologist/ecologist and reviewed and approved by the City Biologist, shall be required prior to issuance of the coastal development permit, and the permit shall be consistent with and require compliance with that plan. The plan shall, at a minimum, include the following elements: i. Monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified ornithologist/ecologist to assess potential adverse impacts to migratory and resident bird species. ii. The monitoring design and schedule shall include a paired monitoring design (i.e.[,] a night with lights immediately preceded or followed by a night without lights), and a monitoring frequency of once per week during any week when lights are operated during Fall and Spring migration periods for at least one year. If the monitoring results indicate that the one year monitoring period was a typical bird migration year with a typical range of atmospheric conditions and the main sports field lights have resulted in no adverse impacts upon birds, no additional monitoring may be required. If the monitoring results indicate otherwise, monitoring shall continue for an additional year(s) until a year of monitoring under typical conditions occurs and the consulting ornithologist obtains enough data to assess potential adverse impacts to migratory and resident bird species. iii. The description of observational monitoring activities shall include tallying species and numbers of birds observed within a 200 ft. sphere of the light standards and noting atmospheric conditions, bird behavior, and changes in bird behavior. iv. The monitoring plan shall specify a threshold for determining significant adverse impacts to migratory and resident bird species from field lights. v. Seasonal migration reports (Fall and Spring) of monitoring results shall be submitted to the City Biologist. However, the consulting ornithologist shall immediately notify the City should an adverse bird event related to the approved field lights occur at any time during the course of monitoring. The monitoring plan shall also include a provision for submission of a final monitoring report to the City Biologist at the end of the monitoring period. The approved Avian Monitoring Plan shall be implemented concurrent with the approved field lighting operations. If the Monitoring results indicate that the approved field lighting results in significant adverse impacts upon birds, the City shall require modification of the approved lighting schedule in order to ensure avoidance of the identified impacts. A draft Avian Monitoring Plan for the Revised Project has been prepared by Atkins and submitted to the City of Malibu s biologist for review and approval as part of the District s CDP Application. Approval and implementation of an Avian Monitoring Plan concurrent with operation of the revised field lighting, as required by the LCP Amendment 1-11-A, would ensure that the Revised Project would not pose a significant impact to migratory and resident bird species that may potentially occur in the project area, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. As such, no significant new impact or significant increase in the severity of a previously described impact would occur, and there are no substantial SMMUSD MMHS Athletic Field Light MND Addendum 49

54 Environmental Issues Potentially Less Than w/mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- No changes in the circumstances, or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the adoption of the 2009 MND with respect to migratory wildlife. (e) (f) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 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 The Revised Project would be subject to all local plans and policies protecting biological resources referred to in the MND, as well as the LCP Amendment 1-11-A. Compliance with these plans and policies would be ensured through the CDP and CUP process. The Revised Project is not subject to an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved conservation plan. According to the CCC Staff Report W13a for the LCP Amendment 1-11-A, based on review of past biological surveys and inventories conducted at the Campus and a survey conducted by the CCC s Staff Ecologist, the Revised Project site is not located in, or adjacent to any areas that are considered environmentally sensitive habitat (ESHA) or that support special status plant or animal species. The only ESHA identified within the study area is the intermittent blue-line stream containing highly degraded riparian habitat located approximately 600 feet northwest of the Revised Project Site. Although other areas in the vicinity of the Revised Project may have native habitat value, such as the black walnut trees that span an ephemeral stream/drainage near Merritt Drive and undisturbed coastal sage scrub to the east of the Athletic Field, it was determined that these areas not rise to the level of ESHA. Accordingly, the Revised Project would not result in conflict with a local policy or ordinance protecting biological resource or conservation plans, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. As such, no significant new impact or significant increase in the severity of a previously described impact would occur, and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances, or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the adoption of the 2009 MND with respect to local plans and ordinances protecting biological resources and conservation plans. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: (a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section ? Discussion The Revised Project site is the existing Athletic Field. No historical resources are currently located on the Revised Project site. Additionally, according to the Updated California Historic Resources Inform System (CHRIS) Records Search report prepared for the Revised Project by Atkins in February 2012, no historic aged structures are located in the Revised Project area (Atkins 2012) As such, no impact to historical resources would occur as a result of the Revised Project. Therefore, no significant new impact or 50 SMMUSD MMHS Athletic Field Lighting MND Addendum

55 SECTION V. Cultural Resources Potentially Less Than w/mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- No significant increase in the severity of a previously described impact would occur, and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances, or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the adoption of the 2009 MND with respect to historical resources. (b) (c) (d) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section ? Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Discussion The Revised Project includes the installation and operation of four permanent light poles on the Athletic Field. Because light poles would be permanent, unlike the Approved Project, installation of the light poles would result in minimal ground disturbance associated with the footings of the light poles. According to the Updated CHRIS Records Search report prepared for the Revised Project by Atkins in February 2012, no cultural resources have been recorded within the project area but seventeen prehistoric resources and one historic age resource are known within a one-mile radius of the Campus(Atkins 2012). Although no cultural resources have been recorded within the project area, ground disturbing activities would have the potential uncover previously unrecorded archeological resources and paleontological resources. However, compliance with the City s LIP Chapter 11, which is intended to avoid the damage or destruction of important cultural resources within the City of Malibu would ensure that impacts to cultural resources remain less than significant. Additionally, in the event that human remains are uncovered during ground-disturbing construction related activities, the SMMUSD would be required to implement the process specified by California Health and Safety Code (CHSC) Section Therefore, the Revised Project would result in a less-than-significant impact to cultural resources with compliance to local and state regulations. As such, no significant new impact or significant increase in the severity of a previously described impact would occur, and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances, or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the adoption of the 2009 MND with respect to archeological and paleontological resources, and human remains. SMMUSD MMHS Athletic Field Light MND Addendum 51

56 Environmental Issues Potentially Less Than w/mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- No VI. GEOLOGY/SOILS Would the project: (a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: (i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. (ii) Strong seismic groundshaking? (iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (iv) Landslides? Discussion Geologic, seismic, and soil conditions at the Revised Project site have not changed since preparation of the previous MND. Consistent with the findings of the MND, the Revised Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with seismic activity or landslides. The Revised Project includes the installation and operation of four permanent light poles on the Athletic Field. Because light poles would be permanent, unlike the Approved Project, installation of the light poles would result in minimal ground disturbance associated with the trenching for the electrical conduit and installation of the footings of the light poles. However, this action would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with seismic activity or landslides. Therefore, no impact would occur. As such, no significant new impact or significant increase in the severity of a previously described impact would occur, and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances, or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the adoption of the 2009 MND with respect to seismic activity and landslides. (b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Discussion Unlike the Approved Project, installation of the proposed permanent light poles would result in minimal ground disturbance. Compliance with Policy 8.3.J of the City of Malibu s LIP, which requires that the area of soil to be disturbed at any one time and the duration of exposed soils be limited, and that erosion and sediment control measures shall be installed as soon as possible following the disturbance of soils, would ensure that soil erosion would be limited. Therefore, the Revised Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil, and no impact would occur. As such, no significant new impact or significant increase in the severity of a previously described impact would occur, and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances, or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the adoption of the 2009 MND with respect to soil erosion and the loss of topsoil. 52 SMMUSD MMHS Athletic Field Lighting MND Addendum

57 SECTION VI. Geology/Soils Potentially Less Than w/mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- No (c) (d) 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? Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Discussion Geologic, seismic, and soil conditions at the Revised Project site have not changed since preparation of the previous MND. Unlike the Approved Project, installation of four permanent light poles would result in minimal ground disturbance associated with trenching for the electrical conduit and installation of footings. According to the MMHS Campus Improvements Project EIR, the potential for liquefaction, lateral spreading, land subsidence, and collapse is considered low at the Campus. Additionally, seismically induced settlement is expected to be on the order of 0.25 inch or less. As such, the Revised Project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the installation of four permanent light poles. The Revised Project would however be located on soils that are highly expansive. Regardless, compliance with requirements of the Division of State Architect would ensure that potential impacts associated with unstable geologic units or soil and expansive soil are avoided. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. As such, no significant new impact or significant increase in the severity of a previously described impact would occur, and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances, or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the adoption of the 2009 MND with respect to unstable geologic units or soil and expansive soils. (e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Discussion The Revised Project site is currently served by an existing septic system that would be improved as part of the MMHS Campus Improvements Project. No septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems are included in the Revised Project. Accordingly, no impact would occur. As such, no significant new impact or significant increase in the severity of a previously described impact would occur, and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances, or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the adoption of the 2009 MND with respect to wastewater disposal systems. SMMUSD MMHS Athletic Field Light MND Addendum 53

58 Environmental Issues Potentially Less Than w/mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- No 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 To address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the installation and use of field lighting for the Revised Project, this Addendum 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 Revised Project. Construction emissions for greenhouse gases were generated using CalEEMod and are included as Appendix E to this Addendum. For the calculation of emissions from electrical usage, the kilowatt-hours (KW/H) of electrical consumption per year from operation of the lights were multiplied by the Southern California Edison emission factors for Carbon Dioxide (CO 2 ), Methane (CH 4 ), and Nitrous Oxide (N 2 O) for electrical generation. These factors were then multiplied by their global warming potential (CO 2 =1, CH 4 = 21, and N 2 O = 310) and added together to determine the total annual operation carbon dioxide equivalent (CO 2 e) emissions for the Revised Project. Based on information provided by Musco Lighting, each fixture runs off of KW/H (Winfrey 2012). Therefore, the 48 fixtures would equate to 75KW per hour. The District would restrict operation of the lights to no more than 125 hours per year, which would equate to 9,375 KW/H per year. 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 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. 54 SMMUSD MMHS Athletic Field Lighting MND Addendum

59 SECTION VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Potentially Less Than w/mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- No 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 CO 2 e 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 4 (Estimated Annual GHG Emissions) shows the estimated GHG emissions for the construction and operation of the Revised Project. Detailed assumptions and emission calculations are included in Appendix E. While the circumstances under which the Revised Project would be undertaken have changed due to the associated construction activity, no significant new impact or significant increase in the severity of a previously described impact would occur, and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances, or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the adoption of the 2009 MND with respect to GHG emissions. GHG emissions would be substantially below the recommended SCAQMD threshold and therefore, this impact would be less than significant. Table 4 Estimated Annual GHG Emissions Emission Source Metric Tons CO2e Amortized Construction a 0.27 Energy Total 2,267.4 SCAQMD Institutional Screening Threshold 3,000? No SOURCE: Atkins (2012) (CalEEMod was used to determine construction emissions; CalEEMod output is included in Appendix E). Service Population is the sum of employees and residents of the Revised Project. a. Annual construction emissions are 7.96 MT CO2e. (b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Discussion AB 32, The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 establishes California s target to reduce emissions back to 1990 levels by the year SB 375, a follow up to AB 32, establishes targets for reducing SMMUSD MMHS Athletic Field Light MND Addendum 55

60 Environmental Issues Potentially Less Than w/mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- No 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 VII(a) above also provides an analysis of the Revised Project s consistency with AB 32 and SB 375. Since the Revised Project would produce emissions that are below the SCAQMD threshold, both options of the Revised Project is consistent with AB 32 and SB 375, the statewide policies for reducing GHG emissions. While the circumstances under which the Revised Project would be undertaken have changed due to the associated construction activity, no significant new impact or significant increase in the severity of a previously described impact would occur, and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances, or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the adoption of the 2009 MND with respect to 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) (b) (c) (d) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school? Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Discussion The Revised Project would result in the installation and restricted operation of four permanent light poles at the Athletic Field. Unlike the Approved Project, the Revised Project would involve ground disturbing activities associated with the installation of the permanent light poles. However, similar to the Approved Project, installation and operation of the Revised Project would not involve the transportation, use, handling, disposal, release, or emission of hazardous materials into the environment that could create a significant hazard. According the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared by LFR Inc. in October 1, 2009 for the Campus, the Campus is listed on the Los Angeles County Hazardous Materials Systems (HMS database), LUST, HAZNET, CORTESE, and SWEEPS UST databases. However, the Preliminary Environmental Assessment Report (PEA) prepared by ARCADIS in June 14, 2010 for the Campus 56 SMMUSD MMHS Athletic Field Lighting MND Addendum

61 SECTION VIII. Hazards/Hazardous Materials Potentially Less Than w/mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- No determined that no recognized environmental conditions (RECs) that present a potential risk to human health, such as a soil contamination, occur at the Athletic Field. As such, ground distributing activities associated with installation of the four permanent light poles would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment. Additionally, in the event that unforeseen hazards are encountered or occur, the Revised Project would be subject to applicable federal, state and local regulations. Therefore, the Revised Project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to hazardous materials. As such, no significant new impact or significant increase in the severity of a previously described impact would occur, and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances, or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the adoption of the 2009 MND with respect to hazardous materials. (e) (f) 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? If within the vicinity of a private airstrip, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Discussion The Campus is not located within an airport land use plan, nor is it within 2 miles of a public use airport, or within the vicinity of a private air strip. The Los Angeles County Sheriff operates an emergency helipad at Zuma Beach, approximately 2,200 feet to the south of the MMHS Athletic Field. Installation of the four 70-foot-tall light poles would not interfere with the operations of the emergency helipad, because the height of the light poles would be below the FAA s 200-foot height restriction for structures within 5,000 feet of a heliport (Federal Aviation Authority 2004). Accordingly, the Revised Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area associated with airports or airstrips, and no impact would occur. As such, no significant new impact or significant increase in the severity of a previously described impact would occur, and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances, or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the adoption of the 2009 MND with respect to airport and airstrip hazards. (g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Discussion As stated in the 2009 MND, 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 MMHS Disaster Preparedness Plan. Therefore, implementation of the Revised Project, which involves the installation and restricted operation of four permanent light poles on the Athletic Field, would have no impact on emergency response or evacuation plans. As such, no significant new impact or significant increase in the severity of a previously described impact would occur, and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances, or new information that was not known and could not have SMMUSD MMHS Athletic Field Light MND Addendum 57

62 Environmental Issues Potentially Less Than w/mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- No been known at the time of the adoption of the 2009 MND with respect to 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 As stated in the 2009 MND, the Athletic Field is located in hilly area within the City of Malibu, which is generally subject to wildfires. Specifically, the Athletic Field is located in a Class IV, or extreme, fire hazard zone (SMMUSD 2012a). However, installation of a light system will not expose people or structures to additional risk from fires than already exists on the athletic and in the immediate vicinity. Therefore, implementation of the Revised Project would result in no impact related to wildfires. As such, no significant new impact or significant increase in the severity of a previously described impact would occur, and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances, or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the adoption of the 2009 MND with respect to wildfires. IX. HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY Would the project: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 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)? 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? 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? 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? (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? 58 SMMUSD MMHS Athletic Field Lighting MND Addendum

63 SECTION X. Land Use/Planning Potentially Less Than w/mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- No (h) (i) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Discussion Implementation of the Revised Project, which involves the installation and operation of the four permanent light poles, would have no effect on groundwater and would not alter existing drainage patterns, create or contribute runoff water, or construct housing or habitable structures on the Athletic Field. According to the MMHS Campus Improvements Project EIR, the Campus is not located within the 100-year or 500-year flood zone as defined by FEMA and is not located in any sea-level rise, tsunami, or seiche inundation zone (SMMUSD 2012a). Compliance with applicable water quality laws, the Malibu Municipal Code, City of Malibu s LIP, and Malibu General Plan would ensure that water quality standards are not violated during construction. Accordingly, the Revised Project would result in no impact related to hydrology and water quality. As such, no significant new impact or significant increase in the severity of a previously described impact would occur, and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances, or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the adoption of the 2009 MND with respect to hydrology and water quality. X. LAND USE/PLANNING Would the project: (a) Physically divide an established community? Discussion Implementation of the Revised Project, which involves the installation and operation of the four permanent light poles proposed at the Athletic Field, would not physically divide an established community, and no impact would occur. As such, no significant new impact or significant increase in the severity of a previously described impact would occur, and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances, or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the adoption of the 2009 MND with respect to the physical division of an established community. SMMUSD MMHS Athletic Field Light MND Addendum 59

64 Environmental Issues Potentially Less Than w/mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- No (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 Implementation of the Revised Project would result in the installation and operation of four permanent light poles on the Athletic Field that would conform to lighting standards identified in LCP Amendment 1-11-A approved by the CCC on October 5, Refer to CCC Staff Report W13A included as Appendix A of this Addendum regarding the approved LCP Amendment 1-11-A. Standards identified in the LCP Amendment 1-11-A are as follows: a. Lighting shall be minimized, directed downward, and shielded using the best available visor technology and pole height and design that minimize light spill, sky glow, and glare impacts to public views and wildlife to the maximum extent feasible. b. Lighting may only occur for a maximum of three (3) days in any calendar week and must be limited to the following time restrictions: i. During Pacific Standard Time (defined as of 2011 to be the first Sunday in November to the second Sunday in March), the lights may be illuminated no later than 7:30 p.m. except as indicated below. ii. From each September 1 through May 31 period, inclusive, the lights may only be illuminated after 7:30 p.m. up to 18 times, and then (a) only until 10:30 p.m., (b) never on consecutive nights, and (c) on no more than two nights in any given calendar week. iii. The lights may not be illuminated at any time between June 1 and August 31, inclusive, of any year. c. For lighting that is to be allowed during bird migration periods (Fall Migration: September through first week in November, and Spring Migration: Last week of March through May), an Avian Monitoring Plan, that is prepared by a qualified ornithologist/ecologist and reviewed and approved by the City Biologist, shall be required prior to issuance of the coastal development permit, and the permit shall be consistent with and require compliance with that plan. The plan shall, at a minimum, include the following elements: i. Monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified ornithologist/ecologist to assess potential adverse impacts to migratory and resident bird species. ii. The monitoring design and schedule shall include a paired monitoring design (i.e.[,] a night with lights immediately preceded or followed by a night without lights), and a monitoring frequency of once per week during any week when lights are operated during Fall and Spring migration periods for at least one year. If the monitoring results indicate that the one year monitoring period was a typical bird migration year with a typical range of atmospheric conditions and the main sports field lights have resulted in no adverse impacts upon birds, no additional monitoring may be required. If the monitoring results indicate otherwise, monitoring shall continue for an additional year(s) until a year of monitoring under typical conditions occurs and the consulting ornithologist obtains enough data to assess potential adverse impacts to migratory and resident bird species. iii. The description of observational monitoring activities shall include tallying species and numbers of birds observed within a 200 ft. sphere of the light standards and noting atmospheric conditions, bird behavior, and changes in bird behavior. iv. The monitoring plan shall specify a threshold for determining significant adverse impacts to migratory and resident bird species from field lights. 60 SMMUSD MMHS Athletic Field Lighting MND Addendum

65 SECTION X. Land Use/Planning Potentially Less Than w/mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- No v. Seasonal migration reports (Fall and Spring) of monitoring results shall be submitted to the City Biologist. However, the consulting ornithologist shall immediately notify the City should an adverse bird event related to the approved field lights occur at any time during the course of monitoring. The monitoring plan shall also include a provision for submission of a final monitoring report to the City Biologist at the end of the monitoring period. The approved Avian Monitoring Plan shall be implemented concurrent with the approved field lighting operations. If the Monitoring results indicate that the approved field lighting results in significant adverse impacts upon birds, the City shall require modification of the approved lighting schedule in order to ensure avoidance of the identified impacts. d. The applicant shall be required to submit a written statement agreeing to the above restrictions. LCP Amendment 1-11-A authorizes limited athletic field lighting of the main sports field at Malibu High School only after the issuance of a CDP by the CCC and a CUP by the City of Malibu, as well as the approval of an Avian Monitoring Plan. The Revised Project differs from the Approved Project in that there would be four permanent light poles compared to five temporary light poles, and the light poles would be 70 feet tall, compared to the temporary light poles that were 53 feet in height. The Approved Project was not subject to the lighting standards of the LCP Amendment 1-11-A found to minimize adverse environmental impacts associated with lighting of the Athletic Field because the LCP Amendment 1-11-A had not yet been approved. Additionally, since adoption of the 2009 MND, CDP has been amended by CDP Amendment A4 adopted October 5, 2011 to eliminate Special Condition No. 6 (Athletic Field Lighting Restriction), which prohibits lighting of the Athletic Field and adds Special Condition No. 9 (Certification of City of Malibu LCP Amendment 1-11-A), which requires that a separate CDP be issued by the City of Malibu in order for lighting to be permissible. Accordingly, unlike the Approved Project, the Revised Project does not require an amendment to CDP A4 but does requires a separate CDP permit. Refer to CCC Staff Report W17A included as Appendix B of this Addendum regarding the amendment to CDP In compliance with LCP Amendment 1-11-A Lighting Standards Part A, the revised field lighting would be minimized, directed downward, and shielded using the best available visor technology and pole height and design to minimize light spill, sky glow, and glare impacts to the maximum extent feasible. Specifically, each light fixture would be outfitted with Musco s LSG 14-inch visor, shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3, 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 (Winfrey 2012b). The LSG visor would direct light downward, reducing the spill light into the sky and reducing glare. The LSG visor reduces escape light by 30 percent over the TLC visor included in the Approved Project (Winfrey 2012b). The LSG visor utilizes the best available visor technology (Winfrey 2012b). Sky glow from a fixture using the LSG visor would be similarly reduced over that of the TLC visor. The increased height of the revised field lighting would also reduce spill lighting and sky glow compared to the Approved Project, because increased the increased height of the light poles allows for a steeper vertical aiming angle for light fixtures which reduces spill light and glare (Musco Sports Lighting LLC 2011). Other LSG features of the revised field SMMUSD MMHS Athletic Field Light MND Addendum 61

66 Environmental Issues Potentially Less Than w/mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- No light 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 (Musco Sports Lighting LLC 2011). Additionally, the Revised Project would implement mitigation measure MM A-1, which requires the District to equip the lighting with appropriate visors to reduce glare and sky glow, and mitigation measure MM A-2, which requires lights to be designed to reduce light and glare to the maximum extent feasible, identified in the 2009 MND, which would reduce light and glare impacts to a less-than-significant level. As shown in Figure 10, spill light from the revised lights equipped with LSG 14-inch visors and designed in compliance with the LCP Amendment 1-11-A and mitigation measures MM A-1 and MM A-2, would not be received beyond approximately 450 feet from the Athletic Field. Accordingly, as discussed in Sections I.c and IV.a, light would not be cast on nearby light sensitive receptors or ESHAs from the revised lighting is illuminated, and impacts to public views and wildlife would be minimized to the maximum extent feasible. Therefore, the Revised Project would comply with LCP Amendment 1-11-A Lighting Standards Part A. Compliance with lighting restrictions identified in LCP Amendment 1-11-A Lighting Standards Part B would be ensured through the issuance of a CDP and CUP by the City of Malibu and the District s submission of a written statement agreeing to the LCP Amendment 1-11-A lighting restrictions as required by LCP Amendment 1-11-A Lighting Standards Part D. Compliance with LCP Amendment 1-11-A Lighting Standards Part C, which requires the preparation of an Avian Monitoring Plan approved by the City Biologist, would be insured through the issuance of a CDP, which would be consistent with and require compliance with the Avian Monitoring Plan. Accordingly, the obtainment of a CDP and CUP would ensure that the Revised Project would not conflict any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation, including the LCP Amendment 1-11-A, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. As such, no significant new impact or significant increase in the severity of a previously described impact would occur, and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances, or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the adoption of the 2009 MND with respect to conflict any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation. (c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Discussion The Revised Project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. As stated previously, the Revised Project site is not located within a designated ESHA as shown on the Malibu LCP ESHA resources map, and is entirely contained within the Athletic Field on the Campus. As such, no impact would occur. As such, no significant new impact or significant increase in the severity of a previously described impact would occur, and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances, or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the adoption of the 2009 MND with respect to conservation plans. 62 SMMUSD MMHS Athletic Field Lighting MND Addendum

67 SECTION XI. Mineral Resources Potentially Less Than w/mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- No XI. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: (a) (b) 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? 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 The Campus is zoned Institutional and has a General Plan land use designation of Public Facilities. No mineral resources exist on the Revised Project site, nor is the Campus delineated as a mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, no impact to mineral resources would occur as a result of the Revised Project. As such, no significant new impact or significant increase in the severity of a previously described impact would occur, and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances, or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the adoption of the 2009 MND with respect to mineral resources. XII. NOISE Would the project: (a) (b) (c) (d) 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? Result in the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Discussion Installation of the four light poles would require minimal construction activities associated with light pole footings that could be completed in a day. While it is not anticipated that construction activities would exceed City of Malibu noise standards, Malibu Municipal Code (MMC) Section exempts construction noise from these standards so long as it occurs between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM on weekdays and between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM on Saturday. The Revised Project s compliance with MMC Section would ensure that construction of the Revised Project would not result in the exposure of persons in excess of established standards. Because construction activities would be so minimal, construction of the Revised Project would not expose persons to or generate of excessive groundborne noise or groundborne noise levels. SMMUSD MMHS Athletic Field Light MND Addendum 63

68 Environmental Issues Potentially Less Than w/mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- No The 2009 MND discusses noise generated from operation of the temporary lighting due to the use of diesel-powered generators and determined that noise impacts associated with these generators would result in a less-than-significant impact to residences. As the Revised Project would include the installation and operation of permanent Athletic Field lighting that would be connected to existing utilities serving the Campus, use of diesel-powered generators would not be required. Therefore, less than significant noise impacts associated with operation of the Revised Project are anticipated to be less than previously disclosed in the 2009 MND. Although athletic field lighting does not currently occur on the Campus, sports events that increase noise levels are periodically conducted at the Athletic Field. Therefore, night time events that would utilize the field lighting would not result in new noise sources associated with events on the Athletic Field, but would result in changes to when these events typically occur, as evening events could more easily be accommodated. Because events could occur in the evenings rather than the afternoon hours, these events could attract additional spectators resulting in increased noise levels during the event. As reported in the 2012 EIR, ambient noise measurements were taken at night during the last home football game of the 2008 season in order to record typical noise levels associated with football games at off-site locations. These monitoring locations are identified in Figure 11 (Noise Monitoring Locations). This data was used to develop a baseline to evaluate whether the proposed Athletic Field improvements would result in an increase in off-site noise levels due to an increase in activity. The evening football noise levels ranged between 46.6 dba L eq and 62.7 dba L eq, as shown in Table 5 (Summary of Football Game Off-Site Noise Monitoring) of the 2012 EIR and are replicated here in Table 5. Table 5 Position Location 6: Morning View Drive (Driveway across from main school driveway) Location 7: 6130 Via Cabrillo Street (Adjacent to private residence) Location 8: 6421 Merritt Drive (Residence adjacent to street) Summary of Football Game Off-Site Noise Monitoring Start Time Duration (minutes) Sound Level (dba Leq) Min. dba Max. dba Sources 6:45 PM Traffic entering parking lot 7:07 PM Game noise from field 7:30 PM Location 9: 6036 Merritt Drive 8:13 PM Game noise SOURCE: Game noise, traffic along Pacific Coast Highway and Morning View Drive Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District, Malibu Middle and High School Improvement Project Final EIR (certified February 2, 2012). The loudest noise reading taken at a residential sensitive receptor that was solely attributed to field noise related to game activities was 53.0 dba, with a maximum peak noise level of 72 dba L max, which occurred at 6036 Merritt Drive, located approximately 1,300 feet to the north of the Revised Project site, across the Malibu Equestrian Park. According to the Malibu General Plan, the maximum sustained exterior noise limit from nontransportation sources between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM is 55 dba 64 SMMUSD MMHS Athletic Field Lighting MND Addendum

69 # # # Daytime Off-Site Locations Nighttime Off-Site Locations (6 same as 2) Classroom Noise Monitoring MMHS Field Lighting MND Addendum Source: Google Earth Pro, basemap, 2009; Atkins, NOT TO SCALE Figure 11 Noise Monitoring Locations