Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2005-04-25 #P • AGENDA REPORT DATE: April 25, 2005 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU: John B. Bahorski, City Manager FROM: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF COMMENT LETTER RE: NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND SCOPING — LONG BEACH AIRPORT TERMINAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Authorize approval of letter with any modifications determined appropriate, instruct Mayor to sign proposed Response Letter and forward to Environmental Quality Control Board for information. Receive and File Staff Report. BACKGROUND: The City has received a copy of the "Notice of Preparation and Scoping - Long Beach Airport Terminal Area Improvements" (NOP). This document indicates the City of Long Beach will prepare a draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), and is requesting comments from responsible agencies, other agencies, and the general public, as to what should be covered in the DEIR. The NOP document is provided as Attachment 2. An initial NOP was circulated for agency and public comments in September 2003, and the City Council approved a comment letter on October 14, 2003. This current NOP informs the public of modifications that have been made to the proposed project as a result of public comments received in 2003, and provides another opportunity for input on the issues to be addressed in the EIR for the current project. Project Overview: The DEIR will evaluate the potential environmental impacts of a proposed project at the Long Beach Airport that will consist of the following major project components: Holdrooms Office Space Concession Area Ticketing Facilities Passenger Security Screening Area Airline Gates Agenda Item P Z:\My Documents \CEQA\Long Beach Airport Terminal NOP 2.CC Staff Report.04- 19- 05.doc\LW\04 -19 -05 City Comment Letter re: Notice of Preparation and Scoping — Long Beach Airport Terminal Area Improvement Project City Council Staff Report Apri125, 2005 Baggage Security Screening Aircraft Parking Positions Baggage Claim Devices Vehicular Parking Baggage Service Office Traffic and Pedestrian Circulation Restrooms A summary overview of the proposed improvements at these operating areas of the airport is provided in Section 4.0, Description of the Proposed Project, on pages 10 -14 of the NOP. Table 1, Long Beach Airport Passenger Terminal Improvement EIR Alternatives, provides a detailed summary of the differences between the proposed project, Alternative A (the 2003 project), and alternatives identified as Alternatives B, C. and D. The terminal improvements are being designed to accommodate the 41 airline flights and 25 commuter flights, passengers associated with those flights, and security requirements imposed by the Federal Transportation Security Administration (TSA). This flight level is anticipated to result in approximately 3.8 million annual passengers (MAP) being served at Long Beach Airport (LGB). A reduced size copy of the concept plan for the terminal improvements is provided as Attachment 3. Identified Changes to Project Since 2003 NOP: As indicated on pages 5 and 6 of the NOP: "Key changes to the EIR scope of work as a result of the AAC (Airport Advisory Commission) and City Council action, include providing a health risk assessment and providing a discussion of the environmental impacts that could be accommodated within the existing Airport Noise Compatibility Ordinance. While the project does not propose any changes to the Airport Noise Compatibility Ordinance or other means of directly increasing flight operations at the Airport, it was determined that the EIR should assess the impacts associated with the introduction of 25 commuter flights that could be accommodated at the Airport under the existing terms of the Airport Noise Compatibility Ordinance, even though those operations do not currently occur at the Airport. The EIR will also address the impacts associated with up to 52 commercial flights. This is the maximum reasonable flight level that could potentially occur with optimized operational procedures and aircraft, and still be within the noise limits ( "noise bucket ") permitted by the Airport Noise Compatibility Ordinance. Both the addition of 25 commuter flights at the Airport and the potential increase of up to 11 commercial flights over 2 Long Beach Airport Terminal NOP 2.CC Staff Report.04 -19 -05 City Comment Letter re: Notice of Preparation and Scoping — Long Beach Airport Terminal Area Improvement Project City Council Staff Report Apri125, 2005 current operational levels at the Airport (which are the number of commercial flights allowed by the Airport Noise Compatibility Ordinance) are not causally related to the project proposed facilities improvements, because they could occur without any project proposed improvements, and any impacts would be applicable to all alternatives, including the No Project Alternative, because they could occur without any project - proposed improvements. If they occur, they will result from carrier decisions to optimize flight operations under the Airport Noise Compatibility Ordinance, rather than the availability of specific terminal facilities." The project is designed to serve the current minimum permitted passenger levels at the airport. Phasing of the developments proposed for the project would be determined based on availability of funding and service priorities, and to minimize impacts on airport operations. Summary of Proposed Action and Environmental Impacts: Staff has provided as Attachment 2, a complete copy of the NOP, which provides an overview of the proposed project, location and site plan maps of the proposed project, and the required environmental" checklist with discussion of the determinations set forth in the environmental checklist. NOP Comment Period: The comment period on the NOP will conclude on May 16, 2005. Staff has prepared a draft response letter for the consideration of the City Council, provided as Attachment 1, which sets forth concerns of the City regarding flight path deviations for flights landing at Long Beach Airport, based on City Council discussions at several of the more recent City Council meetings. Written comments may be submitted to: City of Long Beach Attn: Ms. Angela Reynolds, Environmental Officer Planning and Building 333 West Ocean Boulevard Long Beach, CA 90802 The City of Long Beach will also accept responses to the NOP by e-mail, if received through the close of business, May 16, 2005, only if the e-mail comments do not contain any attachments. E -mail comments may be sent to airporteir @longbeach.gov. The web site provides directions on how to provide comments via e-mail. 3 Long Beach Airport Terminal NOP 2.CC Staff Report.04 -19 -05 City Comment Letter re: Notice of Preparation and Scoping— Long Beach Airport Terminal Area Improvement Project City Council Staff Report April 25, 2005 Public Availability: A copy of the NOP is available at the Department of Development Services for review. Copies have also been provided to each library within the City, including the Leisure World Library. Schedule of Scoping Meetings: Public Scoping meetings for the Long Beach Airport Terminal Area Improvement Project will be held at the Energy Department Auditorium, 2400 Spring Street, Long Beach, on the following days and times: ❑ Thursday, April 28, 2005 from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. ❑ Saturday, May 7, 2005 from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Future City Actions: Staff has prepared a response letter for consideration of the City Council relative to the Notice of Preparation (Refer to Attachment 1). Due to the time limits for receiving comments, the Environmental Quality Control Board will not review this matter. The next meeting of the EQCB is May 25, after the deadline for receipt of comments. Therefore, the matter is before the City Council at this time for action. Upon completion of the Draft EIR by the City of Long Beach, both the EQCB and the City Council will review the EIR document, with a formal comment letter regarding the Draft EIR being approved by the City Council. Staff is including as Attachment 4 to the Staff Report the following documents that are available on the Long Beach Airport web page at www.lgb.org and downloaded on April 19, 2005 for the information of the City Council and interested citizens: ❑ Home Page — Long Beach Airport — 2 pages ❑ Long Beach Airport EIR Terminal Facilities Presentation, City Council Study Workshop, January 4, 2005 — 63 pages ❑ Long Beach Airport Monthly Noise Report, Noise Statistics - Complaints and Violations — 1 page . ❑ Noise Statistics for February 2005, 3 pages ❑ Noise Statistics for January 2005, 2 pages FISCAL IMPACT: Minimal impact. Existing staff resources will be allocated to review the Draft EIR and prepare a comment letter for consideration by the Environmental Quality Control Board and the City Council. 4 Long Beach Airport Terminal NOP 2.CC StaffReport.04 -19 -05 City Comment Letter re: Notice of Preparation and Scoping— Long Beach Airport Terminal Area Improvement Project City Council Staff Report April 25, 2005 RECOMMENDATION: Authorize approval of letter with any modifications determined appropriate, instruct Mayor to sign proposed Response Letter and forward to Environmental Quality Control Board for information. Receive and File Staff Report. NOTED AND APPROVED: Whitten erg John B. Bahorski irector of Development Service City Manager Attachments: (4) Attachment 1: Draft City Comment letter re: "Notice of Preparation and Scoping - Long Beach Airport Terminal Area Improvement Project" Attachment 2: "Notice of Preparation and Scoping - Long Beach Airport Terminal Area Improvement Project ", City of Long Beach, dated April 14, 2005 Attachment 3: Reduced Size Plan — SRFP Concept for Terminal Improvements Attachment 4: Long Beach Airport web page information available at www.lgb.org and downloaded on April 19, 2005: Cl Home Page — Long Beach Airport — 2 pages ❑ Long Beach Airport EIR Terminal Facilities Presentation, City Council Study Workshop, January 4, 2005 — 63 pages ❑ Long Beach Airport Monthly Noise Report, Noise Statistics - Complaints and Violations —1 page ❑ Noise Statistics for February 2005, 3 pages ❑ Noise Statistics for January 2005, 2 pages 5 Long Beach Airport Terminal NOP 2.CC Staff Report.04 -19 -05 City Comment Letter re: Notice of Preparation and Scoping — Long Beach Airport Terminal Area Improvement Project City Council Staff Report April 25, 2005 ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFT CITY COMMENT LETTER RE: "NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND SCOPING - LONG BEACH AIRPORT TERMINAL AREA IMPROVEMENT PROJECT" 6 Long Beach Airport Terminal NOP 2.CC Staff Report.04 -19 -05 - p - B y M ' - C a 00RPORtiT F '' y o Q r' i �' - 9 , 11 6 , - ;‘` 'IN 27 X9 ( c p .CIT) HALL 211= EIGHTH STREET 9 SEAL BEACII CALIFORNIA 90740 ' ' (562) 431 -2527. vvv,w.c1.seal beach ca.0 .Ct r v z t t., a t rig '" - _ 4 ' Vt.: t ,. +1., 3 Fya� 3 +.._ r �rl: e4s .-i �,w � r , 5 « SS al^.?g _ _ •. rT ,L`!2•. ` .: ^•• April 25, 2005 City of Long Beach Attn: Ms. Angela Reynolds, Environmental Officer Planning and Building 333 West Ocean Boulevard Long Beach, CA 90802 Dear Ms. Reynolds: SUBJECT: CITY OF SEAL BEACH COMMENTS RE: NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF DRAFT EIR — "LONG BEACH AIRPORT TERMINAL AREA IMPROVEMENT PROTECT' The City of Seal Beach has reviewed the above referenced Notice of Preparation (NOP) and has several general comments and observations relative to the document, which are set forth below. The City of Seal Beach recognizes that the scope of the project and the analysis to be conducted as part of the environmental evaluation of this project has changed based on comments received during the 2003 scoping process. The City particularly appreciates your response to our concern of October 14, 2003 regarding the lack of specific information contained in the then Section 3.0, Description of the Proposed Project, on the probable number of flight operations that could be accommodated. The specification in the current document of a maximum of 52 flights will allow all reviewing parties to evaluate the forthcoming EIR document on a consistent basis. The City also supports the inclusion of the health risk assessment as part of the EIR to allow for full disclosure of any potential adverse effects based on increased flight operations that are still within the "noise bucket" provisions of the "Airport Noise Compatibility Ordinance ". We also recognize and support the position that all comments received during the 2003 scoping process will be included and evaluated within the current EIR document, and specifically request that all of previous comments included within our October 14, 2003 comment letter be incorporated into this comment letter also. Z:\My Documents \CEQA\Long Beach Airport Terminal NOP2.City Comment Letter.doc\LW\04 -25 -05 City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re: Notice of Preparation and Scoping — Long Beach Airport Terminal Improvement Project April 25, 2005 The City requests that the DEIR thoroughly analyze the project based on the anticipated number of flight operations, and the resulting CNEL and SENEL noise levels, based on the projected number of flights that could be added without airlines or commuters exceeding their allocated portion of the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise budget based on the baseline year of 1989 to 1990, not just the minimum number of flights permitted by the appropriate settlement agreements and the provisions of Chapter 16.43 of the Long Beach Municipal Code. The cumulative noise analysis will not be adequate under CEQA unless it is based on an analysis of the anticipated flight activity, not the minimum flight activity permitted by the appropriate settlement agreements and the provisions of Chapter 16.43 of the Long Beach Municipal Code. During several of our recent City Council meetings concerns have been raised by City Council members and the general public regarding the perceived variances from the approved flight paths for flights descending into Long Beach Airport, and the low level of many of those flight operations. There is a concern that the enforcement of the existing flight approach patterns are not be rigorously monitored and enforced by the Airport. The City has received complaints from the residents regarding the noise impacts of these perceived deviations of the allowable arrival flight patterns. The City has also received comments that airport responses have not been timely or have adequately addressed concerns, requiring additional follow up by City staff. The DEIR should present a clear and thorough presentation of information regarding the number of arriving flights that that deviate from the approved approach patterns, both vertically and horizontally. The document needs to clearly establish the resulting noise levels that may be generated by such deviations for the flight patterns, and determine if there are exceedences of the CNEL and SENEL provisions of Chapter 16.43 of the Long Beach Municipal Code in those instances. The City of Seal Beach requests that the DEIR include information as to the locations of the current noise monitoring stations, and evaluation as to the necessity of establishing additional noise monitoring locations within the City of Seal Beach to ensure full and complete compliance with the provisions of the appropriate settlement agreements and the provisions of Chapter 16.43 of the Long Beach Municipal Code. The City further requests that the DEIR provide an "Air Carrier Arrivals Crossing Seal Beach" and a "Penetration Gate Plot" analysis similar to that provided within the "Long Beach Airport Brief — Huntington Beach Presentation ", dated July 31, 2003 for the appropriate "gate plot" locations either within Seal Beach or the closest applicable gate plot locations to our city boundaries. During the public comment period on the Draft EIR, our City will provide comments and concerns as determined appropriate. Again, our primary concerns would be related to potential increases in noise impacts to the City of Seal Beach based not on a minimum number of flight operations, but on a reasonably expected number of flight operations, based on past flight operational levels that have occurred within the allowable noise 2 Long Beach Airport Terminal NOP2.City Comment Letter City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re: Notice of Preparation and Scoping — Long Beach Airport Terminal Improvement Project April 25, 2005 budget for Long Beach Airport, and the impacts of continuing arrival flight path deviations over our community. The City Council considered and discussed the NOP on April 25, 2005 and authorized the Mayor to sign this letter, representing the official comments of the City of Seal Beach. Thank you for your consideration of the comments of the City of Seal Beach. Please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services, City Hall, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, 90740, telephone (562) 431 -2527, extension 313 if you have any questions regarding this matter. In addition, please provide four (4) copies of the Draft EIR on this project to Mr. Whittenberg, so the City can have a copy available at City Hall and at each library within the City available for public review during the public comment period. The City would also request a PDF formatted -copy of the DER, including all technical appendices, be forwarded to Mr. Whittenberg at the time of distribution so that it might be posted on our web page for interested citizen's to view and prepare any comments they may wish to forward to Long Beach on this project during the public comment period. Sin ely, Paul Yost Mayor, City of Seal Beach Distribution: Seal Beach City Council Seal Beach Planning Commission Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board City Manager Director of Development Services 3 Long Beach Airport Terminal NOP2.City Comment Letter City Comment Letter re: Notice of Preparation and Scoping — Long Beach Airport Terminal Area Improvement Project City Council Staff Report April 25, 2005 ATTACHMENT 2 "NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND SCOPING - LONG BEACH AIRPORT TERMINAL AREA IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ", CITY OF LONG BEACH, DATED APRIL 14, 2005 Io Long Beach Airport Terminal NOP 2.CC Staff Report.04 -19 -05 Long Beach Airport Terminal Improvement Project NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND SCOPING 'SUS luawdoIanaO Date: April 14, 2005 SOOZ 8 T ddV Project Title: Long Beach Airport Terminal Improvement Project 436813 !sag °,!3 Project Proponent/Lead Agency: City of Long Beach The City of Long Beach ( "City ") is the owner and operator of Long Beach Airport ( "LGB" or "Airport"). The City has determined that it will prepare an Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR ") in connection with the consideration by the City Council of development of terminal improvements at the Airport (the "project" or the "proposed project "). The proposed project is described more specifically below. An initial study has been prepared and is attached to this notice or is available for public review at the Airport offices at the location provided below. The City is the lead agency for the project and will prepare the EIR under the terms and requirements of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") (Pub.Res.Code § §21000, et seq.), and the implementing "guidelines" ( "Guidelines ") (14 Cal.Code Regs. § §15000, et seq.). The purpose of this notice is: (1) to serve as the Notice of Preparation ( "NOP ") to potential "Responsible Agencies" required by section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines; and (2) to advise and solicit comments and suggestions regarding the preparation of the EIR, environmental issues to be addressed in the EIR, and any related issues from interested parties other than potential "Responsible Agencies," including interested or affected members of the public. The City requests that any potential Responsible or Trustee Agency responding to this notice do so in a manner consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15082(b). An initial NOP was circulated for agency and public comment on September 22, 2003. Scoping meetings were also held in October 2003. Additionally, the Airport Advisory Commission held 15 meetings from November 2003 through July 2004 to help define the scope of the project. This NOP informs agencies and the community of modifications that have been made to the proposed project as a result of the scoping process held in connection with the initial NOP circulated for public comment in September 2003, and provides another opportunity for input on the issues to be addressed in the EIR. The EIR will include copies of all of the comments received in response to the September 2003 NOP and at the October 2003 scoping meetings, as well as comments received as part of the current (2005) NOP process. In addition, the EIR will address, to the extent possible, issues raised during both of the NOP public comment processes (2003 and 2005). Pursuant to CEQA section 21080.4, Responsible Agencies must submit any comments in response to this notice not later than thirty (30) days after receipt. The City will accept comments from others regarding this notice through the close of business, May 16, 2005. Notice of Preparation and Scoping 1 April 14, 2005 Long Beach Airport Terminal Improvement Project ALL COMMENTS OR OTHER RESPONSES TO THIS NOTICE SHOULD BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO: Ms. Angela Reynolds, Environmental Officer Planning and Building City of Long Beach 333 West Ocean Boulevard Long Beach, CA 90802 IN ADDITION, the City will accept responses to this notice by e-mail received through the close of business, May 16, 2005. If e-mail comments are submitted with attachments, any attachments should be delivered separately, in writing, and in person or by regular mail, to the address specified above. The virus protection measures of the City's e-mail system, and the variety of potential formats for attachments, limits the ability for the attachments to be delivered by e-mail. Responses to this notice may be sent to: airporteir @longbeach.gov. The web site contains directions on how to provide comments via e-mail. PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS Public scoping meetings for the proposed Airport Terminal Improvement Project will be held on April 28 and May 7, 2005. The meetings will be held in the Energy Department Auditorium, • located at 2400 Spring Street, Long Beach. The Thursday, April 28 meeting will be held from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. The meeting on Saturday, May 7 will be held from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. The purpose of the scoping meetings is to obtain input from the public on the issues to be addressed in the EIR. The technical studies have not been completed; therefore, no technical data will be available for distribution at the meeting. A brief presentation on the project will be provided at the beginning of the meeting, after which the representatives of the consultant team will provide an overview of the technical studies that will be prepared. There will also be the opportunity to provide formal comments at the meeting either verbally or in writing. A stenographer will prepare a transcript of the meeting, which will become part of the administrative record. • Notice of Preparation and Scoping 2 April 14, 2005 INITIAL STUDY LONG BEACH AIRPORT TERMINAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT -- CITY OF _ - -- LONG _ == =ul CITY OF LONG BEACH 333 West Ocean Boulevard Long Beach, CA 90802 Phone: 562 - 570 -6555 April 14, 2005 Long Beach Airport Terminal Improvement Project Glossary' and Acronym List GLOSSARY Air Carrier — A scheduled carrier, certificated under Federal Aviation Regulations ( "FAR ") Parts 121, 125, or 135, operating aircraft having a certificated maximum takeoff weight of seventy -five thousand (75,000) pounds or more, transporting passengers or cargo. California Noise Standards — The Noise Standards for California Airports, as set forth in 21 California Code of Regulations, Sections 5000, et seq. Unless otherwise stated, the terms used in this Chapter shall have the same meanings as set forth in the Noise Standards. Charter operation — A revenue producing takeoff or landing, operated by a person or entity that is neither an Air Carrier nor a Commuter Carrier, using an aircraft having a certificated maximum takeoff weight of seventy -five thousand (75,000) pounds or more and transporting passengers or cargo. • Commuter and commuter carrier — A scheduled carrier, certificated under FAR Part 121 or 135, operating aircraft having a certificated maximum takeoff weight less than seventy -five thousand (75,000) pounds and transporting passengers or cargo. Flight — One arrival and one departure by an aircraft. Freight — Goods to be sent as air cargo. General aviation — Aviation activity other than operations by Air Carriers, Commuter Carriers, Industrial operators, Charter operators, and "public" (i.e., government owned) aircraft. Industrial Operation — One takeoff or one landing of an aircraft having a certificated maximum gross takeoff weight of seventy -five thousand (75,000) pounds or more for purposes of production, testing, remanufacturing, or delivery by or under the control of a manufacturer based at the Airport. This definition does not include flights into or out of Long Beach for purposes of maintenance, retrofit, or repair. Operation — A takeoff or a landing of an aircraft at the Airport. Definitions, with the exception of freight, are from the adopted Noise Ordinance — Chapter 16.43 of the Municipal Code Initial Study i April 14, 2005 Long Beach Airport Terminal Improvement Project ACRONYM LIST AAC Airport Advisory Commission ANCA Airport Noise and Capacity Act ANOMS Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System ARB Air Resources Board ATSA Aviation and Transportation Security Act BMPs Best Management Practices - CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CDMG California Division of Mines and Geology CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level EDS Explosives Detection System EIR Environmental Impact Report EPA Environmental Protection Agency ETD Explosives Trace Detection FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAR Federal Aviation Regulation GANC General Aviation Noise Committee LGB Long Beach Airport MAP Million Annual Passengers MEI Maximum Exposed Individuals ND Negative Declaration NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System • RON Remaining Overnight RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SEIR Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SENEL Single Event Noise Exposure Levels • TSA Transportation Security Administration Initial Study ii April 14, 2005 Long Beach Airport Terminal Improvement Project 1.0 Introduction An Initial Study ( "IS ") has been prepared to evaluate the potential for the proposed Long Beach Airport Terminal Improvement Project ( "project" or "proposed project ") to result in significant environmental impacts consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") (Pub. Res. Code § §21000, et seq.), and the implementing CEQA guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. § §15000, et seq.) ( "Guidelines "). The proposed project may result in potentially significant environmental impacts. For that reason, and as discussed below, an Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR ") will be prepared for the proposed project. 1.1 Project Summary and Overview The proposed project would provide improvements to the existing terminal and related facilities at LGB in order to accommodate recent increases in flight activity at the Airport as well as increases which may occur in the future consistent with operational limitations of the Airport Noise Compatibility Ordinance and the 1995 Settlement Agreement. The proposed project includes construction of, or alteration to facilities in the thirteen areas listed and described below: • Holdrooms • Concession Area • Passenger Security Screening • Baggage Security Screening • Baggage Claim Devices • Baggage Service Office • Restrooms • Office Space • Ticketing Facilities • Airline Gates • Aircraft Parking Positions • Vehicular Parking • Traffic and Pedestrian Circulation ' In addition, the EIR will address the maximum reasonable flight level that could potentially occur with optimized operational procedures and aircraft and still be within the noise limits ( "noise bucket ") permitted by the Airport Noise Compatibility Ordinance. 1.2 Purpose of This Initial Study This Notice of Preparation ( "NOP ") and IS have been prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA to evaluate the potential for the proposed project to result in significant environmental impacts. As described in Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines, an IS can be used to: 1. Provide a preliminary analysis of potential project - specific and cumulative environmental effects of a proposed project; and 2. Identify environmental issue areas where the proposed project may have the potential to result in significant impacts that should be evaluated in a project - specific EIR. Initial Study 1 • April 14, 2005 Long Beach Airport Terminal improvement Project 1.3 Anticipated Project Approvals The City of Long Beach ( "City ") is the lead agency for the proposed project. This EIR will serve as the environmental analysis for the project, permitting full consideration by the City of possible terminal improvements at the Airport, and, if approved, construction of the terminal. The City would be responsible for the following approvals as a condition of project implementation: • Cultural Heritage Committee Review • Certification of the EIR by the City Planning Commission • Project selection by the City Council After certification of the EIR and selection and approval of a project, and after preparation of development plans, the project would be subject to Site Plan Review by the Planning Commission for a height variance due to the anticipated height of the parking structure. 1.4 Anticipated Schedule The project schedule, as currently envisioned, anticipates a draft EIR to be available for public review in Fall 2005. A forty -five (45) day public review period will be provided, after which responses to comments received on the draft EIR will be prepared. Hearings on the project are anticipated in Fall 2005/Winter 2006, with the Planning Commission taking action on the project shortly thereafter. 1.5 Probable Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project Until the EIR analysis is completed, it is not possible to identify with precision the "probable environmental effects of the proposed project." However, the City has performed an IS, a copy of Which is attached to this notice, to identify the potential adverse environmental effects of the proposed project that the City believes require further and more detailed analysis in the EIR. The City has identified the following specific topics as requiring detailed EIR analysis: • Aesthetics • Air Quality • Cultural Resources • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Health Risk Assessment • Land Use and Planning • Noise • Public Services • Transportation Based on the IS, the proposed project would not result in any potentially significant effects with the following areas, and they do not require further analysis in the EIR: • Agriculture • Biological Resources • Geology and Soils • Hydrology and Water Quality • Mineral Resources • Population and Housing • Recreation • Utilities and Service Systems Initial Study 2 April 14, 2005 Long Beach Airport Terminal Improvement Project 1.6 Conclusion The City requests your careful review and consideration of this IS, and invites any and all input and comments from interested agencies and persons regarding the issues to be addressed in the draft EIR. 2.0 Project Background And Regulatory Setting 2.1 Regulatory Setting In 1981, the City of Long Beach adopted a noise control ordinance affecting LGB that limited the number of air carrier flights at the Airport to 15 flights per day and required the use of quieter aircraft. The purpose of the ordinance was to reduce the "cumulative" noise generated by the Airport. The ordinance was challenged by the commercial airlines in federal court. Following an injunction by the court, the City formed a task force and prepared an Airport Noise Compatibility Program, pursuant to Federal Aviation Administration ( "FAA ") regulations. The task force recommended allowing air carrier flights to increase to 41 daily flights provided certain noise limits could be met. In 1986, the City adopted a second aircraft noise ordinance that established noise limits and restricted the number of air carrier operations to 32 flights per day The federal court rejected this ordinance, finding that the limitation on the number of flights was too restrictive. The federal court ultimately ordered the City to permit a minimum of 41 commercial air carrier flights and 25 commuter flights per day. The City appealed the federal court's order; however, in January 1992, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's decision. In an effort to resolve the protracted litigation, the City and the airlines entered into a stipulated settlement- agreement. In February 1995, the City of Long Beach City Council certified Negative Declaration (ND- 19 -94), which analyzed the proposed settlement of long- standing airport noise litigation between the City of Long Beach and a number of air carriers and other users of the Long Beach Municipal Airport titled Alaska Airlines et al v. City of Long Beach. Under the settlement, the City Council would adopt a new Airport Noise Compatibility Ordinance (see Section 2.2 for a summary of the settlement provisions. For the period from adoption of the new ordinance through 2001, no party to the settlement would be allowed to challenge the ordinance, and the City would not be allowed to amend the Airport Noise Compatibility Ordinance so as to make it more restrictive on aircraft operations. The court approved the settlement and entered a final judgment on June 13, -1995. As a result of the settlement, the City enacted Chapter 16.43 of the Municipal Code. Chapter 16.43 permits air carriers to operate a minimum of 41 airline flights per day while commuter carriers are permitted to operate a minimum of 25 flights per day. There are provisions in the Airport Noise Compatibility Ordinance allowing the number of flights to be increased if the air carrier flights and commuter flights operate below their respective Community Noise Equivalent Level ( "CNEL ") Iimits In 1990, while the City's appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was pending, Congress passed the Airport Noise and Capacity Act ( "ANCA "), which limited an airport operator's right to 2 To provide CEQA compliance for the noise ordinance, the City of Long Beach certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR- 45- 85/EIS- 82 -85) for the Airport Noise Compatibility Program FAR Part 150 Study at Long Beach Airport (SCH No. 86012911). 3 The Noise Compatibility Ordinance can be viewed at the Airport web site at www.Igb.org. Initial Study 3 April 14, 2005 • Long Beach Airport Terminal Improvement Project control Stage 3 aircraft ANCA's specific objective was to stop local municipalities from imposing new restrictions on aircraft operations without complying with significant procedural requirements and obtaining federal approval. Included within the ANCA legislation is a "grandfather" provision, which permits the City to continue to enforce the flight and noise restrictions that are contained in the Airport Noise Compatibility Ordinance (Chapter 16.43). In May 2003, the FAA reaffirmed the "grandfather" status of the Airport Noise Compatibility Ordinance under ANCA. 2.2 Summary of the Principal Terms of the Existing Settlement Stipulation As indicated in Section 2.1, the settlement agreement provisions were incorporated into the City's Airport Noise Compatibility Ordinance. The principal terms of the settlement reached in May 1995 and approved in June 1995 by Federal District Court, include the following: 1. Provide flight activity limits at the Airport of 41 daily airline flights and 25 daily commuter flights, assumed to be all Stage 3 aircraft; 2. Provide an increase in the flight activity limits only if the City determines that flights can be added without airlines or commuters exceeding their allocated portion of the CNEL noise budget based on baseline year of 1989 to 1990; 3. Require flight activity of general aviation, charter, and manufacturing operations to stay within their portion of the baseline year CNEL budget; 4. Require monitoring of Single Event Noise Exposure Levels ( "SENEL ") at the 18 monitoring stations provided by the Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System ( "ANOMS "); 5. Provide for SENEL limits that are more stringent during 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 10:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., and very stringent during 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.; 6. Provide limitations on hours of training and run ups, including early curtailment on weekends and holidays, and all but one runway closed during late night hours; 7. Require the formation of a General Aviation Noise Committee ("GANC") and require GANC to monitor and manage the general aviation noise budget; 8. Require implementation of a noise abatement program with a multi -step violation process that includes notifications, noise abatement plans, administrative penalties and possible criminal prosecution; and 9. Require the creation of pilot education programs and processes. 2.3 Transportation Security Administration On November 19, 2001, the President of the United States signed into law the Aviation and Transportation Security Act ( "ATSA "), which, among other things, established the new Transportation Security Administration ( "TSA ") within the Department of Transportation. This Act established a series of challenging but critically important milestones toward achieving a secure air travel system. 4 A "Stage 3 airplane" means an airplane that has been shown to comply with Stage 3 noise levels prescribed in FAR Part 36, Appendix C. Initial Study 4 April 14, 2005 Long Beach Airport Terminal Improvement Project The TSA is directly responsible for developing increased air travel security programs. They have developed enhanced screening procedures at airports across the country. For example, each passenger must go through two stages of screening known as baggage checkpoints and passenger checkpoints, described below. Some passengers may go through an additional stage of screening, gate screening. As of January 1, 2003, TSA began screening 100 percent of checked baggage at all 429 commercial airports across the United States. Several methods are being used to screen the checked baggage. The most common methods involve electronic screening either by an Explosives Detection System ( "EDS ") or Explosives Trace Detection ( "ETD ") device. The EDS machines are the large machines that can be over 20 feet long and weigh up to three tons. Currently, TSA uses ETD equipment to screen baggage at the airport. However, it is likely that in -line EDS equipment will be installed in the future. The passenger checkpoint includes three primary steps: (1) all carry-on baggage must be placed on the belt of the X -ray machine; and (2) all passengers must walk through a metal detector. If an alarm is set off, the passenger will undergo a secondary screening; and (3) secondary screening includes a hand -wand inspection in conjunction with a pat -down inspection, as well as hand search of all carry on luggage. The ultimate goal of the TSA is to create an atmosphere that aligns with the passenger's need • to be secure while ensuring freedom of movement for people and commerce. Their mission is to protect our nation's transportation systems — aviation, waterways, rails, highways, and public transit. 2.4 Project Background In June 2003, the City of Long Beach approved a scope of work for the preparation of an EIR to analyze the potential environmental impacts of possible improvements to the Airport's terminal area to accommodate passenger and cargo activity provided for under the existing Airport Noise Compatibility Ordinance. The project would also provide for required provisions for new security measures. The approved scope provided an opportunity for the City Council to reevaluate the scope of work, after the project scoping process was complete, to ensure the issues raised during the scoping process that were associated with the proposed improvements would be adequately addressed in the EIR. The City held scoping meetings to solicit public input on October 11 and October 16, 2003. Approximately 100 people attended the Saturday (October 11 scoping meeting and approximately 200 people attended the Thursday (October 16 scoping meeting. In addition, the City received 217 responses to the NOP (a combination of letters, postcards, and emails). The key issues raised through the scoping process were flight operations, air quality, health risk, noise, cumulative impacts, and land value. Recognizing the intense public interest, the City Council referred the scope of project and the scope of the EIR to the Airport Advisory Commission ( "AAC ") for consideration. The AAC held a series of meetings, open to the public, from November 2003 through July 2004 to consider recommendations on possible airport improvements and to advise on certain issues regarding scoping of the EIR. The AAC made recommendations regarding the project and technical studies to be prepared for the EIR. The City Council considered these recommendations on February 1 and February 8, 2005. As a result of this process, changes were made to the improvements that would constitute the proposed project and be addressed in the EIR The original 2003 scope of work focused just on impacts associated with construction of the facilities (i.e., a "bricks and mortar" project). Key changes to the EIR scope of work, as a Initial Study 5 April 14, 2005 Long Beach Airport Terminal Improvement Project result of the AAC process and City Council action, include providing a health risk assessment and providing a discussion of the environmental impacts associated with the operational environment at the Airport that could be accommodated within the existing Airport Noise Compatibility Ordinance. While the project does not propose any changes to the Airport Noise Compatibility Ordinance or other means of directly increasing flight operations at the Airport, it was determined that the EIR should assess the impacts associated with the introduction of 25 commuter flights that could be accommodated at the Airport under the existing terms of the Airport Noise Compatibility Ordinance, even though these operations do not currently occur at the Airport. The EIR will also address the impacts associated with up to 52 commercial flights. This is the maximum reasonable flight level that could potentially occur with optimized operational procedures and aircraft, and still be within the noise limits ( "noise bucket ") permitted by the Airport Noise Compatibility Ordinance Both the addition of 25 commuter flights at the Airport and the potential increase of up to 11 commercial flights over current operational levels at the Airport (which are the minimum number of commercial flights allowed by the Airport Noise Compatibility Ordinance) are not causally related to the project proposed facilities improvements, and any impacts would be applicable to all alternatives, including the No Project Alternative, because they could occur without any project - proposed improvements. If they occur, they will result from carrier decisions to optimize flight operations under the Airport Noise Compatibility Ordinance, rather than the availability of specific terminal facilities. 3.0 Environmental Setting 3.1 Local and Regional Setting The project would be implemented at Long Beach Airport in the City of Long Beach, Los Angeles County. The Airport is located on approximately 1,166 acres in central Long Beach. The street address for the Airport is 4100 East Donald Douglas Drive, Long Beach, California 90808. Aviation activities are located just north of Interstate -405 ( "1- 405 ") and generally bound by Cherry Avenue to the west, City of Lakewood and the future Douglas Park project to the north, and Lakewood Boulevard to the east. A regional vicinity map and a site location map are provided as Exhibits 1 and 2, respectively. 3.2 Project Site and Surrounding Uses Presently, LGB covers 1,166 acres and has five (5) runways, the longest being 10,000 feet. The Airport serves commercial carriers, general aviation, and air cargo. The area surrounding the Airport is generally urban in character. The layout of the existing facilities in the terminal area is provided in Exhibit 3. Surrounding uses include existing Boeing property and industrial uses in City of Lakewood to the north. The City has approved a reuse plan titled "Douglas Park" for a portion of the Boeing property. That plan, which was approved in December 2004, provides for 261 acres of mixed - use development, including 3.3 million commercial and office space, 200,000 square feet of retail space, 1,400 residential units, 400 hotel rooms, and 11 acres of park. The Skylinks Golf Course and the Airport Business Park are located to the east, and industrial and commercial The permitted number of flights per day may be increased in each operator flight restriction category as long as the flights operate below the CNEL budgets. In order for the number of flights to be increased and still comply with the Noise Compatibility Ordinance the airlines would have to optimize their flight operations. This would include using quieter aircraft and reducing the number of late night operations. Under optimal conditions, which have never been achieved at LGB, the estimated number of increased flights would range between seven and 11 flights. The EIR will consider 11 flights as a worst -case scenario. Initial Study 6 April 14, 2005 - - . .• . •••,: . .. -- - 0 -•n t' - ' - "- T .-5•:'', E r:--,,,: . r ,Iic; •- .4•-"-:. • ' • :-;.' '•- .•- .:-. ‘ Lan • aster - •,- ' ... • 0 , \ .,• - . A ri-ir.'lif-v:74.,T4;e hijift444.2. .. ''..:'--. • e ;.,- : . .e ,..- - (/) _.• ;•p- .- 1 e.,. , . .. . k ri. . ty t.0 ... :. `1,-;;. - ...tr,- -.:=-4.1;..g. ::- .,.,-*- , At , ..,,,..1 _ . . - .-- .!-..- :: -i -kg:140"- . l'A•--v w-i- .. i 6- /:. -. ; - 0.-1.7 , ....% :r • • .........,:,:,,,.. •-!• -e-" * --,eivs. .- .•44: ,v4,4 , -- - , . • - - •.• """,-- ,,•,,: Y" • " ".. 4. Os " ig" - ( -"-"Kr .:- .= . .. • . . a 1 6,4 . i. : . F 41 ....'!..4.121,4„, '..:-. 1:•'•' '.-,. . - .-"-• ••■,;:; .... \ i ". r) -; :%-: " < ret . s in .,, C- tS.,.-4,; -:. 5 ".• ` iffil?-4s1Plia.,.„4"V-fz " - , .. ... ma ...., - - KA 4 '4?•trjZfirel.P.' 4- ' '''6 4 .--. 4 -"6 ,- :" .K1-.;:.• '1. : --- : -."'/•..-.:' , E, Palmdale '-' • C tit ...4,.:4,.....‘,.,:o..f..t.3 ..,.,-71.F.A,,,ei,c,..,-...,,,t.....v.p :_____, ..,... - • . -: tti *it' , 1 - 4'e-'3-- 1 k:: ...1. :!.E. 7 -4 60' -CF.c.Mr..IF:P:r ..e(A.--.: -: . .--. 0 ...I Cn Vietorville •';.- l'.. •:- • :c " sialc ,, ..:1-1 54 .'. • . ',be ,41410 4 --"'-- ' - ... . . -4- . - 4/ . ..-1 --.,.:.:.'..- .9 m'. t -.. • - --. J .-.14 ' .1 -'4'.......trea•-•140›.. '. 47-4-Th. ". ;...1: ". e T ?• -:'. . " :Fkl-,.. -,-.- 1.'f 4 ;4..; e it "': - i - .,. 1, i,. 11..f . t .1?;.• • • ":.• "' • - -..f f.0 lir) ._ - - ., .-r.,1- 1.. f;'., , ••.,, 1..."' II: . :it , • -',....• ....,... " , . - ...- - ....74 : . : ,-.: Z. i.4.-s .. - A , ...... 4 ,..."...• .f,: - t - . .. 4..1 . 1 . Y. , ,,, .....-- - ......! f..:.-111% .... - ,- i - -..,--.: ..-- ".. - - - • ..:.--,. : 4 6. "-''''Aq !".....:,- "•••• . .."4•‘!".•'=' '...) r •"..t..'" ..c..?, . i,, ■CEPS •:;.kz„-::. _ : -k • A - - ..,i;-,.... '411 '. :4* . 1,... ---,. .. 2 ):. , . - '- . .;•-2:..... , - , z,:e45,-: - -!:' - ' 7::....., - ..:' , 1--„...• t...".. kr. ,;,.. :. ,..-;..- g•s -- A vi-,11.4-j:''; -.' Z., .-:.. .. :- . ."-: .' . .... . • .....-e lf 4 ' f) .. 64 ; : • 47. ! : . ..sti ' . - ;;..4..'. -." ". ''''. • "". .. 2 - . • r .7■.....4 ' 4'- :•' "'"-...•: - :!•: ''' ::."-`':'■.-':; :1i,. : A k-t ::;.::',..7.. ! " ;,-.:,.;..- .,._-...-..-•!!;,,-. ?P" ,,zasi•, : ,-;.: ..,* .. .. - ," .. ....7;:l =t-f.. ;.,' ..-",.....,.Ar, ...,..,...-1:,:-:;:.:2-:::"..:;4,..A.:.... :.";--....ti; ',,"..i...."--7.':.44;*:!,:1?•,:e12:24'4.14';„.4 '1; .,..4;. • • ., ..- • ' , ..., e - ..: :4:.(P :-.:-.•:. --••-:,-"-. - --;,-- . 4..,--4- ::-...g:- i.- -,'" i • , ..• . .'t 4 .'2 -11:2:- :-.,.,',:s ,. '',-,..,'...- ..,...:.g:•11-.-.,n71,--...i.--.:444;,,5-:.:74-4-j.iq-Itclesfl'A.V_;44-' --4 4-"ilri' . --.t?L' , . -, F.--- , •_.,-- ,. ...' -i, - ? 1 ,.. - .. - 4-i,• • -. -... - .E.i,ii 4 ••••=. . 1. .f r: ' ,=4 i ''.• Sa :""!...,-;"--;/:" ...fr-1"rf ' ai K ...07, " r " g, •.:, 1_41 Vi••• • ••:. - - i•• , Vrif;- ri , -..iti•!,,01.. , ...4.:, - ;:if; - , 3 :•.: 1 7 ,, ..„ 1. '.clar;ita ..f •"."-7,72..t,,,-.4'"-ztfk '' -• ; . ,.. iffelii.;! i ;...;::; '' ::•..,:.:=- •:: _...., ' / d i .. ,,_.-• -7.3%.fil'eg.....i• c ;.:' , . : •;•- • - 7 - 4f ;•.74; , .;-_ - ".7:•,..• - ; ;:,:-"" IL ;...1411,-.:„=":•,-.,-?t,..:::0",,,...R.eir...w-. -A,..,..;,...,-.;;--:::„.4- . 0":".•:11 - -7414. liv. .:. - , , _., • ,. ,- Z.,......c..it4 14 • ',E • .... •- '4,' " 41:1*,;-:-dtg,#:":".""..4:•-`,....40,4-01thaeles,, 41 • :,„.„......,.5.7,,,„.. ,.. 0(.... cf.,. ,. .--- AP.: -•: .•.' 15 - ......... ,-""A...: ••'''• =4.-, • • .. "0","'" 4 AV .- '•;* '''''' ,jr. 0 - - .-4.-- = . 'S"' 10 - ','`'.. - ea "I? - ,:-.1 4'7? - ' 0, ;:-.1 .cg. '' - • •"' s' :. ,%- ..? ,, - .y"": ,A."' Zi . r '''' t• , '.4?"'"V",';')•r• !."^"Ptal'A" -,...r-tli ,7*-4,-:t•-a.' 4*InIt, 44.11'1 '7;.;. •V.: •.;•••:",.: „ A. ...4.2,:„__ ie "ri.,_ . • W.-;• -" • 4 1 ' --t- '''. - - --.. .':;,;;'.- --." =-G-'-.1?--,1"rlY.-•;'--->ss y. -.0• •,2",Fgr•t`,.., y ."7. 4 ,,,.r. '''4:1- v..' •"'' -. "'......;* •„....i. ' - . .. ;;;:e, !t:I.:4:,.1,-., ",",;..... : - •",.., - s:.;'•;•";.: ."• 1.1%::: -A . sy....0.1.:-.-E.-.. ;-,.:...7..vzr,;2:•,..1,-1=F: -•:.,...e12.:Vc.;,..i:"7-:'1-2,...",•01:74)•-.7e--.61l.-.1*a..., -7w., ar ,, . ' r,.. ,,,,, •- -...°:. - -.: ' ,..„i :r ,.....,........,,..-,-- • • .....•....,:i.:1. f::::.. , -:..-(;.•k".!-,,E-.-E-'.:-=.7•1:1;i44.41"t/".74e-F".'. 4 . . ..,..;:,.„,...,.....,..: 0 ( , 210 --- - -..:,, _.„,.,t,,..1 , .....,• 1 • .. ,s - .. ...i.,.. N -• Simi Valley .... „:,•,:? - ._;,...4 . . - -:, ...,;.■.,1,4;ce4:.-r; '"' tt , 7 ,-. 1E:g r e k .A - K-1,:::tro•:4,.:ri.,*.4:70:41-iti t r ar : -.0 -,...„,, ,,-;,, ,- ;";:el 4 ,.' ., • ",..2 le,..f 1 ! .i., . ‘ '!7 7 ' - - - ' ' ' • . .i -'''" r.: - ''''-4‘. -.*`''_,- -"' ' '' ; .f.',",-X "4- ' .'",...:':,.. • _.e.r. - . ...1...:- . A. 7 :,......... 1 . .... ■ I ft. j a■ i' .... .....7 ....;": r." .2 • .../1 : , - . ' . C '`.., ''.. ' j A- ■ 5 V .., - 1 • 1 1 4 5, ,,•1 4.,Sii...4i1U ttt ... ig.j r . L t. ; ." • ir . `‘.:, "7E . • - •• .• . ... . .- , &};k: ,.. .4.147 • -- . f re:..' 1 • 'It i • :4',..k.": : r ' ..... 11.../....L.L.f::}147:17tie, . -.7:...Pa■Z e .t.1.7,., ' • ......7 • ''. e AC Ie. 44 .....5:SE,Z";:, ..itni j , " . --• '''' '' . .....7 , ' '. ' ".., ..'c ''...• ? :.: '"1 . . ....a . .v. . 4157) 4 r. - -ni •:".• • ' ' - 'Flo"- -_ _ ,_ fv-t • .. --47 : := - ' f h i,...te.: ; .. -,..„:- . is?* .--.• :::.-.. c. 'Wiz: • r p... r . , .. ..-......'" •-. .....,-,1,-.:tix#.. - 0. .....s: --_,...0 ,, ...i.. :40#54.7, . - • .-- ..:. - -, . ;.' '-': ' •, 1 .. '' a Glendale ...,; . '.; .' --. ••:, : • , tkr•---e- '. .....art 2 •11.* - -- - ..'-13.--0-' - •• :.f. Cucamonga • - . . ' •'.••• : ;fl • ".:.: ', '.: - 4 - - •• • • .- ••i • ' ,_, • e ,:l!,- , 7 4.. . I . N" • • . • -r '-- " • - . - c• ••• - ladisis- ,- : - 4;:•'•-91;.-.":-.,:i... - , , ,,... ;.t.r..: . 4"..„ . -. •• •-? , Pasadena . .. 5 '....=. :... '. ....- 1 ;!1 -1 :h . .t., •iigI„ 1 '..-‘1 '*- - ./ 10 .•.: - "4 ,,.. >.:•. .- '".• - .14.14.,-,11".1.:.,.. A.. ;:t: .; ....% Is ....w. \ s....._ N.L . '-..•••••■__ - - , :ai --' ' .1 " .'. .r. ' • :•;:-,-- - - 0 . . ' .. ....,......„.._--- ...g.A1_9... Pne..._rkir..)........."fi• ...4 • • " " West Hollywood --.":•\_ _41 ---...,.. . le, West Covina;t4.Ty AttL Ontario . , , ,. . "....... : ..--- .718',.-cli.rr; • • 7 . • , 't -"J• • ___ .... • ....., ....... • 7' - '1 'Sinta Monica 1 ' f- t.fla - - - ' ,. - -_, Los Angeles . .;,.... j:: ..-'-- -.. ...... . 4 .. ....- • • -. .,:- 605 "...!.....1-,? ri • • .., ."...-,-.--k,:, ;•.,"...::.,4!..4.*a.,--.-- / - :"..t : ;41 5- Z. '. ..."- . CC1 i''.. ''T.• ' Riverside $ 4;in - • L. -:: -;.' • •vt , 1, 41:, :: .. • • .. 710 . . . ...: .:' s ::• - '•t ;X.' ';',A-1 ; .,....:' • ' • 110 • 14i ? 1e.5 .i : 11t.!4 ' „' ..,";'. 44. . .,_ „. ' ..... :•P- . , •:-1.:!,7 1.- 4:35 ..... " CD •! :7;::::: .,::,; 44 s•( ...a":- - -. • r .....1 ;.,.......,,,„ 1 . ii,....., • ! I ;-• t • ;', ::: - :'..."-.:.:0 - ,.:-... .: Down ri,,:,-i a-ato:- • . 7 g• ,.. • '7.,. ..!-...---,;4:: •7. 4 -4: ...,'. ..... . I Oran G. r r 0 , w......' Pi .., 4 .... , ` , j.... ,..., , f: ' :• ;"•: "'• 4 : -' ' ;.- ,....9. • . ' .' - ' -1 05 , .;.•71,2 . , r .... '.1." '''..:9'.-‘A.' -V: 2 1:. ''. . . Hawthorne .. t7. CD _ NI ,:-.-: -..-.-, ill - - -"r - r ,- ::f-- - • ,- 1 , ' 0 0. ■ilf.in "ar .*;., ti:. •--% i,.. r i-:"...`. \ 1 '41-it - 11111 - • --;. 1 t4corona . 4 ...., ... ; - • • ; - • if:. :: •'•:: - 'e , 4 -- ' '4'4 141:::. • • f • -..1." • : ■ Project .111b. - -. -Lake . rf---...-, V : `t ' r.1,.. •,- .:.,;• s,..,.., • • ... e .; •,. :,-":... - - 4-4- .- . - --....f.4 - -,-.-- -... • • • -- - .- ...i Li:.,:- .p. -- ; --/- r. '. "."'"^‘" -. . 1r 4. .y '.."....' : 4170 Location rA . . ,. . „,, • , Buena - rk - re . -- .••■■••.r. .-•_jr.A - ..L': • .1.....,, • --. _ ". ,--.!... Mathews 5 • Allaheinf" '''' :"=•.."1"Pr,...' ,"-.: • -.. .' • .".. ..;- . .". A _ .. 1 .. : . .....,--,i. ..i.;-:z...,...-,pi. - ,:::.:•.... - !?f= 41 --.1:54 , "."":', - '"''' " ' '''' 1 - Jirillir . •... ......... 1 ,i.......:-...,:....,::4.5.z.;..3,..;:...i....1..-:,,i,.:.,-..2, ezi -* _ - - ' :f- - - -.6.---- --"-.2. .... --\ ..;,...;:,.....:;,,,t,......„.4 • -...;v_....;:.-. . -...1,-„...-,..... :,...„::„1.:..:..„..„.:.,::„.i.z„...,...1.....:,.;.,•,,... .......„ • . .. „„....., ,,...,........,......._.,..,;.,, A L • -• 4;4 : ::'-''.. ^9 costa ) . . g;f . . : : - .4 " ii,' " ':,,i f G',1{V.%.:1'.:::t•VV ' . -: -';- :'-'• ' f ..:=• ' e I, ' • . .: • r 4711 /AI it , Lr• r t,.,• ,,, .... 4,.. . -- 74 ,. i:; 4 :?-- '''''i ' ''''.::- t . n paws verges .. „.;:::::. .5)11,g tmi s , ...... .11.. - : . !:1- -.--:‘,..-f. atlecoland ..e-r.; --,.- et:. - . '''. "'"'' .:"2.1..;•41 ."''' -'" •:".1••: '''.. ..": - • 1 \ ' Santa Ana ' "1/1 l ' .- ' ,1 f,fei . -'. 1 0?dA 17. 2 15 i- - -"f. ' "'I .'.. 1 .. c .- .. ,.....:.',.g v : ',4 ' ".. - ',.. . ok r :1 • • ',S,,....--• - ; P i-; .;f: - '....:4-'11 -., A.:f. r, : ,..a...-2:8-...:........4, • :. ......,- ,, . ... . .. , . . . , ..... - ... ..1 , ,., . :. .4,,,..t, t.i. a..-).:.-4-4:S4,,,,,,-,-T.F,Kri-iet.5k7;-:•,:t.r.;;L:i.7.'•._ F:',,,Iti..:.:•-•,--.,•,.....-.,•':.tt.,.t,t, __ 0 •• 1 .. • .P . -1- ..g:, ‘4,$,:;.... is • - - ,- .....r. , ..zsr,....4,- . ."4-- r.z.:,;'-i.:: i. ... ' ., .V.:51.f.kjet.,....,......., -. ... ,. . ' 1 . .._fr•-_._. ,- • - • - ••',.z:;•: f .." •••+•D`...,'••• •''• ' '." • -,1 -. •••ir4. 3 .:- 1.1, • • :',":::.:c;0.4.i..2-:.,:.'r•-:-.'eg r , A..:r . . n.1 . - i - : ( 0....,..,-.. - • -,.... ", ..,.. ,.....•.... ..._. ... ,./.....7.:;,..S •••ai.:"...."•,•.;•,,"'.. ..1... Mg. 02 , ...r...:, - :rrt.:.,..4,:„....--, -,,,,,,?/ : q.....gs,;114 .-7,-4., ••' • t, n • 1 -. .. „!!):, i • - ...0 1, • i •,-:-.44- -...., :-...te.z.7.0, ': 1,1".., ,.,-. :1;.::., ....--.! z ',-=-.:....1 . 4' . -"e„-:.• • ••;,.. a.:. - ;ii , ..110.1 ,1 • &I ---''.--...___N„. - ' ::-:-' , -.,..-: 0-V...i:lit- .,. .7.4. ; 04 .‘...i.,:k.,.4.t '4.*--.` . -it h I . •• ''-••• . 4 ` - . '..(+ '-'...''.",,.. ach°J,'es1-5•_:!kl`--1 -1;•11.:---frA.,0 r L ' ,%;4 t 4 ,,,,... I rv i ne • ----•- ., ,:. : nti. ;--...:' , k'. - ,,,- . , :li:: • ,•:„...:..--i ..• .,..r.• ..."2.of ,..-.4...... -.X 1): 'hit.: • ::!:154 . •"- , I: Et'.1 --,-,. 1.'.. - ..;.. ,-...F...). -1 . ‘• ..4,...-4;;T:K7-_.1.,.....,•:!..41.44...... -;..-?. i. ',... ti-...;q.,:,.• .-..:;;•: -,../%"-aii4:!..K*-4:•sii.r.-..(1.41,2.;.2.;....;.••;iilt.'.:.....-..-p'0.i.!.--4:-•;;;.',...=.;-,•;•;:-.4,i..-ta-.-1.,_-1-,..:3;.: •5411.1 a ,.:20..v.f,•:;.:;.,-4.1.t...„, e . !,-..-- -,.,--; % salon: - :4- ....: 4 .. ,..-, ....; , .,. .. :F.L.:-......s.70 C, Pi .A. ... .....7.c..tr..61,;*....-,--- 4.... , , i - ::•;2-i.i. 2 ,7. ; g 7 .,:.....:. A .R 1/4 .74.2.-, .;.:t.:::::.,.TF,..7-........„.0,?i :fn-.;e:..!. c. v io.f. , .,1.... „A; Ito .r., .....t, .. ...,-; 1/4 • .`,......, .. ,f . Y I.. • ' 4 11 ` .: : . . 41 • ( '■.:`'n • ;-: *•-• ...II...3r ...i: :.7-1;•74:".. en:e01.:.F:;/:111-.1-411. re - 4 -1- .,' ... .rPf/j92f . ', - • ,.. .. - 1.,` :'.■ ;*,I ,. -;.e: ..,,,...T....:"....t. -.., 11 40,-...1-, 4%. ....:••,.. , 1 ...;..2,,':',.1".4...f..•.c4.:,‘."•,1,-, .1!..•:"...,..,e..y.,-...;-,4..:...,..--,:ter.,-;..54:sN..i.?: ..,,, ,-.1.,n•.;;;.1.1".,..1.5ip'i;;;.1.!......c:;..r...„).: e..--, ....7.4:-; a„7 01.Prf •" - ' - • s: -"' ••• - -, -- - , : -, ":'• -. •• 41 :-.1',NV ^ .: - ; • Y■t'::,-,: ‘ , • , . f •.. ‘ • •-"--:. "-, " -••• •. - S - ; "..,-- •••• : --. •C-k 'Yr- '1'. . '',- " -' • ?"--',' J • 4 "•'‘ :-."'" :*"...i". . ".. " ;." ' '' ' ''',..j al i' ' ' . ' -k"k ‘ ,.. t t` :.'....,54.:S.,--"J"..;f:71. , ...V ?....,..":4:::r*r4' igeeh i•Ar )''•., '' .4" -4. ,-.) .-2:. 2-,br• ---,:,::*, gv ,,,,, --•:...2 i: 1 "',"-:, 1-,k .......... t' ...1.:L.I.Nt: ,,-, ..•.,..!: T. , .....t4 4 :; 3 1 .... .! , . . .::. , ,.......2.,... - :...: , s • : ...:, i-f- -. . CO' 'Y'-- • ' .-.,"1. "24, - .:r ... i.".•:. r •• . " - r:r.i'l- , zr.4.....:* ' I.: , it;,:•:*..:4:; '3 ;-::'.. 4 • t''..- ' - „.. -- -1.7 - f.x ':". ,..„,,..-._ ....a., .•:•&,.......;..; •-,! 1_. ,...-:-.s rf it-.....,...... i:- 4 . i.C...fra.'f",•... ."7..-.;..-,....,- .....•,..,•; c...:,..7 ,., ,....„,,, - s i4..........;',..iti:;"t -:,i, 4 1. SI. ,.."1:,1101,,7 ri.,`" '5,?..7 ' .7 -- •',.". 1% .: -. ....!:..1•:,% •• •$ .-'' --:','.••/ 4 "'. • . • : • .. g.: :::...f..4. : • .-Zt1;•If. • ' " r-, 2 t.i- : '•.:;_:.:-4.1.1e1,-,.4i.V4,,--;;14.-:;_s-Ptilit; ';' ; In Aig " '" 74..-i ',-• , ..... , ..„...: . . - $E..c.; , .. : ;',-.._„;:.:::::, :: :j ; ':; , :f ; k-....--. : -:,..):::::', .;,..,-..;..i.v.; ..:•=1.:::. - .,a,-;.! ,:,., - - ;- ." :r1....`-:1 ; 4 -::i::- ' :% Lf f : 2 ' . 0" -- : c iitgthO it ' ' ......0/S0 .<2-•; ....S...: •,..::: - :;---...,.;-:::.,-. ......,.:--,.rr.: k.::. , -,r,;, - .....:•:1.v; . :..`:.•4s - -. ; 7:::1. ; P. : /t:,: r . ,, :f-::• : :. ', ' 7 •-• _.4...c..4,,e;it 1 • •• ::: • . • r ..:: ."?V.: ' •-' •: • .---:!'•''.. •-• : • ::• 7 ; ' ' ! - • :: 2 -•:::' • '..'' 7 ..: ' ,;:* 1 ' - • r- 1: - - -; • -:=-1- 1 .::. : ( ';:•: 1 .•- •' ',-. : -- „ - 1 - ., C;f?-; -::-- z -.A.D I eg 0 -..., , -....,, .., - ,- s t‘..'";,,," • ' - .. - , ---- :r, • :',I.,.. '.." ■ :. --:".... • ...2.. ,..". ' ..;:."',"-,...":::.i . ; 4 •"' ;:":, "I :. • ;".''' ..;t3..:-...:'r:., •.; .....::€'-',..;-.. ": i . 1. " i .:. fr .." .." • ..r; ."- 702 . -" - . • . ‘".:• • •'•" - •': - ''' " .:. ..z .--" Y# -';'?- ": ) ,: :: : • • • • • ;-........" ''- •=:-:::-`6...:.=.:-..-...:•-•:."1..--..."•---e.-.;C:-... f: ; *- •:.; ' f- . 0.... - '.. . . - " T s ;.' ::." ': '-' ' . ' " . .1. - :" • %:-,:) .4 7:.: ;:•.: s , .........i. ' -::".';:■;;. * :`::.• . ...!• ‘ : •:d. : : 1 ,... :: ' 2;,!...... `.........." "•; • • I. ' ..-,... 1: ::•;•-•.;;.,.... ,.:"' : .: .- .... 1 . - " , .. ; ;;;7:,.: N.: ..4:_ ......; ...f.: ' . ..:••••` f.P::;?; • .: , . ::i. -, - .,.. r:"... ,....: : -€:. r ; :-. :. ;,....i I ' it , . - s: : , -•:;; f y:• ..'"..;:::• . ;:•..": ':i,7,; .: .. = f .. . " : . 2.- : :i"..;:;:,•::: -1 , :•",.'": ; ::,,t• :.; :."sh •*!'.. ',.:"-- f . .7: 2 7.::' \:_-_,.....‘" ' - Pendleton Y : .. ......... .y.:-?.. •-•::::,.,- . r. -.. ... . • -- -..- . ..........-....., :.:....t..:.-.': :-. r '-'1,. i'. 5. i-N::f -: . -.--,_--- - .,.. : .:- - -',...i-- - -' : -• ...:-.'e -- ;";:e .-.,.:,--. -;..:- •... 7. jpanta Cataqrp. • - . . ,e -- • i. - 7,. - ; •;•:,-: -..:: i . --„:,... :. --.' ;:f • •", .,,-.:•:: '. -...: - ,; ,. •„::::.r -,..- 1 --._......\;: ° .. , 4.: ..: ,. • . - -i... - .. - • - ' I . t .. .. i• i' 1 ' ' ..:;C:" '-.---Islailill.. : ......t .. :*. - ...?_ . - ..:. . ., : ... -: ........-:. .- ,-- - ...'''....--.... : .,1 - ',...!...:‘,..-."...:.. - ---. ..:".., -.:.'......'........-.- i . t."'.--..z. .. ' . • -,.. ' ... :-. • .--• . ;4: - - . ; ...- - .t .:..... : . .-. 1 ;;'-: .. ..; .-..., - .. ' ...- : 4' ; ';' . ...''''' .. - .- '. .-.. -...-'..;-•. _1 ::,...."% .. . 1..: ....el . .. ..: .... : ...2 --.--;... - .... ___,-_,___._ ._ __ . :... ,_ :.-.. . -- - - ----- - - --- -..: : ..`. -i .:.... ..': :;.'• ' ': . I.,. . ''......r.: --". '' : .-‘ _ke::::::i'i 1..:.... '1_ ...--:. - .... -- ,:, - -•- .- - -- - - - Re gional Location - Exhibit 1 Long Beach Airport Terminal Improvements Project lif7.0117e71 N W E 10 CONSULTING 1 0 5 0 S Miles SJGIS_ExhiitsiLBJ001_RL_082103.pdf • : - - . .2777 Ave i �I J ' . t ,1 a ..R ex�ur•I , ,o.u, w rrr - �:r_u, , . - , 74 � ; .74:•?.../ ' • • q U� I C , '� i Bch . � ' E• y - ,y { �`�;��:.2r ' l ' F �' " ~ � J • 43! ,,.. • � ' ;�. I • 'r-�" r '• ;y �'V • ` � _ ' Park, ll 03:-' 's5. ` _i imr _-4 a: -I $l_ -- • • •,� .` ; ti 31.1 e i „• S x r ,• 'tt It '. - - `.Fl la, • -4 �'l . l r , ... . h 'i t i s I j ' .g. � s.. � !- I r'-• ;r: 1 ' � ¢, : • 'I F 4 W - o ; ¢ ' tt ma I I � E w ': 4 sf �, a *y +� �` \ 1 t ... .4 r Z , : : �.f r ::.4.1 •' . . J I +;' j m 1 . ` �> iv p P.1ii �s - • 1. :s - - 1 s ' '. • �s j a. - 4, i % ' i•'t .K - •��;, '.r' 4 i S ,.1, u r .: � IL � i � Y : • F iR' '''''41-1 i �i v oae: . + . ' -71 ' , n o o ,1 b ' 4 . I v v ' •tt•'4 .... .w r. '�'' { j • 3 � A fit` . IV ' 21 `_.. -, 1 sI ‘.1 . . ..:., 1 - M'iltr O - . : -.. .a o x I 1 f-+., y AKi 17..E . .,, I Pr. x N ' $1 1, fk's k' 3 , ' .. ' -_ ' +i - j II : -�; ?,.O , t �, ;, '--- d �J I 1• •' 'girl tt i$ j 3 1 I a �1 r fl a •-• y I } .O .k _�, • ) � .R .V' ' ?' . hs .a IS{ ;� = I � , ' . 0 a n J 1 i 1 , a / '-- • . i'. ey / `<? -1 ' l 01 l ' `t � y ? : • k . � ° ' o pp � t ' m I f: ; 8 1: I ^/ 1 B y : LT. C ARS ? NJ ti -- 1 ' .1 • STt !e d . -b i 8M eo 4 � ; �rl ve • In .station ,l + ': .1� '' :1 - :: :: : ,:: ;n ! � : M 45 �, \ ,� I1 ell ;� Park • 1 11 a "? • 4, t ti :+ ' `� - • 7 . + 1 > " l� •i Gtl3i1 •sir,. -.3.4 11 � heater l < �trel w r• o , °' I I I l.� f 4,i h j SFyts7 xa r 1i e , A. . = ( e 7 I yam` Vete y ' I I SI . y f° o c 1 = ' �'t i ZC ! ', 't.' .L- ' i • I _ •r+' : " e �': a{ 'K.- ! -- ! ` 4 r6.�_ f r I sr I Mem It 7 t � w: V • - l; - , h I O { t 1 1 + I ai 2 • 3 1 y, + ,-' w l A'. . 1 1 j 1 k` I _ i i Q . + N� � I 1 I 1 } ; ` 4 � r ; ... � 1 .1 l x..r v • �_ • 4 l p i { • 0 1 i. s, . -4,. cG r -1,-. ' - ,:;.„.I.774,5,,..,-dirs. f .aa I te t ' } r : - YYY F I i i ■ �; � - _1 � ` i � -- - �.� • � .... .■T �-.. r' _- - ` 34 V� �''� r 1• I 11 ' - " 1 " -\--------...---- i II I U � I i I . � -- - t _ . `�, Stattoh s 1 ?" - _ ' ' 0 , '04 a. k i IR.4 •1 I ! I . r . " -1( r 7� n 1 :\ G BEACH AIRP j2T :i - ' il__' w r \ GfERTYFIEL �,a3. 1 i ! 1 r 1 1 , ;,� , 'f• _ t : I_ v - j �- 1 ■ : JO e s err 1� fr i \ - 5 L 13 q. / ": S, , , ' �,�, 1 1_r f \ r • Trta : 3 , // ° 01 �I l _ i I i I ' i ® W, I _ r _ \ \ I • 1, v � : .J7, # z _ a 1 11r ng Std 1-1.- 1-1.- : 1r.. 61 ••■ V."-- __ ' -- -Jr:: r - � - , - - - ' I y . .. -.. ' 1 3 : '. � - �r '_ n r-----------=-4- _ �! C � i � � I _- I I B t� . '� L }�7' v tra • ` _, 1 ' ' •.. 1- -_ C .^.,, j I1 • •Y1'. ••� -NG x -_ - -_� LJ 1:--.1.1, _ -_ .' k, .\ , 1 :' 1 \\ 1, � �.+� � � P®. revel • n' + ter' t \' fl ,j ' w IA i t � f� i . � - I on 1� C D t ± . L � ra y d "1 a ,+y ^- - .. ,, •� it f$� {,f ~. � - , F F , I a r I --� r � irH'e,�s1'�� � ' o ��I, ...- • 1 %1 . t1..." ' ��� fl," i i_, PLAN\ 'sx'�tc+• I +u Ai ti • , ' I - � ",, o' 1E1. '� • 0s l �m 1 _ ^ \ 1 1 ` . P 'Pa 'b' '' 1 - • a` i .-1 C "' •< r IS7' 0 ._ Rte �• ` r--4,:. ` `• , � z 45 ` .:.. \ ,,, D - Y� y / All, {! � I O C •'"'{ c �� .G T. \ a ■t . M ' . `' �. 1 I � r ` ' i. BSI P , l al l ��� ,4 y - " g v '..1-.7,-_---....:•„;1-.F...?._: 1., , , t.t{OSPI ' L!•^ 1 � , � � � �' 41 e •'. .. 1 ,.,� +t ■ (1I mar c1 � �� : �.: ,. 1 • i I}� .4ii. ' , - ., �, 4 • L . , ` a 1'', /'l , l q � I_ iV. _ 'I ' -iNX .� s 5 • 1 ,'i f 1 TT L? �u 1 /', , 4 -, '�i-, QQ Y . t i • _ r : a' 1 { �,,Q, 1.f' �?? 1 i;, , v v t I � , ! 1 E I � ,4 I ' . 1 ,F" . 't. • , °-r � rr -� • I '• � � 7 ��`°� ti � ,� �� � �J�'� � t.' t I . , I I - 1 R' . C � � fh>r •' ";Bef �� • : � -, g, �7 ; :i 1 [' •, , ``, ` '3T,°` `� y\. ".'1 + Res a .. a V 1,-• Seh • �. . � :;3 1 � �' ` \ , I�.1< `t . G; � 't '�" _, ava,. ' 1 - • s ' • I �! .43 :- , L �7 % l,1 , P rk vi ,` - -- - �y r � 1 : 1 a ' • I ' , f:c � t L. • , 11 .G�[. • N , 1" i� J .. 0� • 0o �! �� * . -\� i `r , I - 3� + + • ). i • t •• :,' ; \ '� '; ,'� t3 l� f PP ? s 0,, i 41€ G.'' \. .. - } � ' .,5� "�.n'� •:I:iG � � ..I j� i I � 1: 11 sE y - t t� . +y "t E•. B j t . f. + ` . '6'.':41-1: � 1-1 f /• :,.: \fs� ' 0 7. „ - � • . I .Z4,,,,.,,,./.1.0-.,;.•-_,, b`. r 'i `p Si .-Y4�� � . r� S J / j l o -. '! • ..4-(....:31 f a� ° � � 'i c f .) • � - ` ,.t O / , < r e! � ;� • 1 4: - E o } ` ` " 7 w '� • f • .1 %'u Q ° 1 " �'t`` s ° k r ' "xt fi /?C ' ` • 9 it' ' d ' x I ih . a s 1 • , .. -, 1 . r• /. " �.s n M 5 ,.r •�1 MI � I.Q -' - v l II ♦' 1 1 • 4 � - . • ■;: M t:3Z /3 �•A N 'tM4 ,..:-.4,,k :Lt �: a f 1 �-. l' ti . I a 'i4Y �.t �':! i1h , ,' , Yiz �, (, t r 1 V _ �' j:: F `- e. d r'.'• l 4 1sT, ' . - 7 G. .= • •-vs . - •_ - - -2 _ca,. :1 _ ei -.1 -o. -`'- _.. _ - - -._- ` ..: ! _ Jaw. - a � �.- -•- I _ 1 J. .s. • 1 . � 1 � I • y -`' t. $ . 1 : . .. __ • � � • • 3.. Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Long Beach Quadrangle, 1964 Local Vicinity Exhibit 2 Long Beach Airport Terminal Improvements Project - i�t s+ 7000 0 1000 2000 Feet CONSULTING SIGIS E#IlbltsLBJ001 LV 082503.pdf c`�u -r3� } Y "� 4 .j r M ..t �7 - „ ,,, -;.,- - j . I . 1 : S'_. 5 i.R �ri..[ 7 -; # v 3 y�c r t r �� Lr ' t-'3, C . 5 <. -° Watr t e it I 1 G i } 7 ry £ 1 t o 6r� +� tC t �€ 1 �7 G V r4 ,f ♦'i v9 a - --- `1 E � �,i i t ;L !,i J- ti F 1 1 tr. . f `l 1 h '� a < -?w , 3 r,F n' �. c ,rf -: 11 ” 7 141` """ a r ' - 1 t r_ � '.., { t .T � 1 . f n�� -t l � _ J I ���-.0 a e iy t, -Lr t ' �' , ( "p..rn` - l y �1 s � � ` x :'�i a F.. , 4 y , - '� 3 1 R � s r E l i t_ d d/I 1 1 al f. F - ..: ' f a ' `+4 t r it _� l' iii n ;' .` - 1 , ;if ,- rt . -. . --,_ f''a 'ifs - , i ,� Wr=y f5' ; 3 a-1 -. :� sj `�_ ,,' f - 1 Y- d :k - .� -.- .,' r j - -_ r h 4 t �`. ra zr - R 7�.k1 Y nA", A , , r l r 7,. E i tf ~ . u ,' -- p a"� 5 ,� c j F� ..7��..'r •- - :- 1{-��p .�t G '•- ! i �{ i ' --{v f - f - C t r'� t �i TI { rf ° , ` 4 'L� �, 7iT . b y ? !,1 1 '1, y,T∎ r <. , -.� 4r , ` ,L ----- L - .- r i'1 ' 1u ` i - ti a tgi i , r tl l �``,,,�°``�� .-ui s3 I t 4 { -_ti t e r- E1etAmo$ae►»g�atd �1 :1 J ;W g� 1 '� r �� -k k + � x f 37 r j �r y 1 U { -( l Y F I �� - r � ah S� r.t� t ... �� _" I r L „N,yS .. Gi+'���, �,+,�,.� � -�jL ,�. Y. �� 2 r - �{. � 'E. .Y 71 � �>L � "G " 1 t { � l fir: i{ , � i. ti L .' �. �-�F � t �t� y'' f.�td�n* +� t r..T�6. �Y �:� "� t '� v `�`. I1, f r r r- E'."., , t , '3 I jC 1, '' Ci ` %in z <I ' -� n _r a^ - f� ' + { �� 1 , 1�7.�, : - } :. r 1 i : k r Iy 9y,, a.F_ i - ; a , 'n r r i ., t '1! �l 13 ' - w r 4 r E r �:i; d �"��,1 -- 1 .a S �, i T S�� w(t•- f "+f 3 ...c r . t) 1 l 7C J Z S i� t {- (�4t - - { t ~fit t�if :� r t e �+ _ t���� } �. r��� } . 'i _', � {. ?�� r 1 k 1 . } r I J ? ,� l ' R c i :. � � : � s . , .� tr LLL w '� , -V1 flare ,'1'S Y , ,� ts'+ y, i 't k . �1 " 1 t � ' a *'} . j t -� 1 L-?! l � l . A R, r ist n %' s �p y � k ` H!_ k 2_ {" e, F t o 'e` o xh a r t i �' ,, k .J l 1 .1 , i t r l � I 1 4 �;r_ r C, T Il L 'r t :' P r r i / i` (. t i T?'�' �1 5555T t .`;J �- ,'Y - fr' -.. otC et- „'-`f _ �• .u' - Y' � _.S._'s Y. ::� �„�.,_; ,�,.'� art yy ���e !. 2 a nt ✓� r' is . -t A. a,_ 7 '17.' 1 - f 4 � 4 �' €' ' 4- : :I ' t � ''{ i, I J �.� � < � { Llrt �c��s ` � � r 't�' L r� � kay��S .�� t�� - u , tt � �.. y -.r I K pr] - �'(, 5 .F ^'1Y A u t, j'S. I'I k' h I tT Vti 4 _ p�.�^�+ - - i C �: t k ° � 1 �t r+ ..� ( �� v1.k �i 1 { ,( '�, "SJ4 i k� a�� � ` '• t t-t � �r3� �, .m S �t 01 , � � e ., i IL �F L lF 4 r � Eti << .bl._y.., ` r _ r, ,1 z,� [`vL�i'�/ 1 ., f .,,, iz4 p t I a4 c �_ . 1 x _,, 7 n X i` ., - = s, Vik,,��c h y , �1 /' '• -`!� �' ..ttle Gf ` Iw LT 'i•t,{ , 111,[7; at , 4 3 ti 1 - '4--- t Er � ei',r 'r_ ` C 1 - - f1, e x ' :pa w _,� ' } " `1 -✓' `YS,..;•. •. P ' '' �'� i t - r -R . � k 1� ,S^"".',r,1`c..P-'. � 1 ,.�t'k. t �,k t 6f .1 "` ti £. i- ftrt "`: 1 'fi ti S � 1 r iv_ l r .. ". ;T Y 151: t t t �C ;,fry , ' : t !_, ._.'--� -� -I J t - J- --- z -, �, t �.� A : - S ..., - r - • - J `' - ti - r '-. > ,i ,').4v_ L , .�. �...�. .; ..t - ` G , dry . , 'r ''�� : 4 r r r l �� t _ i ii ., tY` 4 . r r �r L k , ._ _ : _ e �� 7;In - �...�.` { I x a ^ ; I r rT t �.£ � -i a:��'s. � E i� �� t � pti t - � Q� t : ��ay � e't"�0,' k- Ms`iFi” �f� r I. E F !� kj - ..� "yy,�; r ..! •y4'.rs< - ��r !�4` ^r �"'d °r,r' � f rtl,, �4r C': ,' n'.� l� it �. 4 ! i 4 t ,, ' F. �7"' { y �' ' t. -r, .�...�,, r , � „S, f �� n F , . - t - ,, 3 f _ h fie. k-rr' R r n , tee r • - '( Ss ` , , ^� ;, , * arc ,,u � . ,,} 7 I - � 9 1. } E f r.tf- d '� -rlil �'^ '_'c �SkW Yl .' rt�� '; ' illy d �•�'-_ \ � i �p _ '... y 1- I .. a h 4 i g Z� _� i E_ L -, -k F Ir+f S I D e lis! 'Z'L � 1 4'� r' -- "1,{ C 4 r � ,�' .� �"' t d T .`# t r i`kJ �?..., �.. 5 it t {{ � � f " �'�. Q - � � T Yr dL - �- r t ljt� 'M '"`>Gi"� � rY. �$bd... i 3 ",t.- ��iyas Y r�' r f i i "C q^. � �.. <, ?2 1' M r �� aaR i .;i ,,, ,' r® ,,. _ �-y , l ' r i t ! -ate; 1 ;'. _mss R ;,,, I tzi ;, �� f , `��. y ii L.1' -Q..n. ���'ur*. ? '1. - w-c tt� t '--,E tC -. 5 ' � - t . Tti i -,: 4 ' O 3 7 , ' ,. ff r,, r 1 i. _ i + � a t F '1,!.- ,.l•If _: ni V . 11 i -y ,-,, m �- k .. -.. - t /� • r �.._' -`, i rr't i.F ,L�- -14Nh`7 � , : ' � ��^�i l& /7 � , t.Y,l {1 7 t ..mac,.. Ir P" ,, -_ , -c Yom+ - j-a� -, ,ss ,� r x f --- K r ". \i �.SS `�` r. +�-, - '.�`�^� j t_:'_ `�V ♦ ..__f r r� - :. -f . 4; t r 1 3 ; r }I r � � � �kt � }-,i t , ' 0'1 .,-A, r j ,, . r :: \, 4 �- e . r . x` �. x , °2- " 4 _." .j1 ,?•? '��'' ti ''N �4r .* t A,.4{ �7i, ryy U��- -''i - - "� m a t, r r � 1 f1 � � ,� 1 �„ ti , C " 1 r1 ti 1 � N � 1 '� K .t j �_ iy� --+� r} 1 i �. t :rW 7 ` �l � Z kE k� T <• 5 , eN � r � • J t r I �* t ' '. t R ��" C } h 'SI {G, '` iii {s 1 + �a C t� 'L.: C L r ^y� [7hi C L'"'✓ t 1 1-y C7 F u� - .,Y X3 ti.o , y r ra.a 7 7� '9' yA�f}��- `s i `7rAr f - 4, -h'a ' ,j „l�f,,, -. r.1 l - d 11 <4,(�'.2 hiR �'C i rv.,"L`^' , 1A-4” - ... fr 4� - t - d ti { F f �s I i E .7,7.11 -- -- , , 17,. tJ ,N , „, , �. N � , -0 - i .., } f .,s , `4 }. a s r_ C Yx - .- ,-'>�� i : r t U J� 1 { - I y :4: r 5*"' • , _ - - r b ,' e t .- �i' IL _ 1 �: q1 �} r T J I. +. 'L +r .'Q 4 Q e>fF 1.f 'q ..0 'k i'�' .A ��7>� j S"'"'> �,,,, _5 � lc+' ®`.T`L�fe �( +i h � ♦ 19 r � - - r r ^� T� = s -r1 .z' w .$..v f .; t � Si p-( F'� l "' �: r ..' ` 1 .s i G � t lo-i =� y „r 1 x. i B * y: 1 1IG 'Vc c j y7, Cc '-- f li r, � .L'.�,z. 'L 4 S - G m ._,.. a' 's wt ,v i,a 3 cs >` .•'i,_. '' e.1, ,. �, '✓ y 55 Y - '}., ' .1 '.f' ""}n -, . ictic. a 2.lfar r s ""�:`� ✓-c n'ry N `' n. ._. r? `r' Y'p'sP s� +t ra-r _ r ,. #, "-qf s- _. rr .C.Y s..t - i Cn, " F Ir .'a f . 7- 4 r`'�., St - �'K�C 4� r^ rii Z i.. ...- 71rii._. Ti, . r l .� A I ._ r '..Q 'a'' gat''-'' �` 4.'a,L�, Ii LS 5 ; - 14.7 -, - wL dr' k, ,_.t ,4 ' ,7,r . y ;L.TF., �,:.r"x a.Y� &l'7,: -a x ° 4 t y�, {*'7 - n'9f ar 1C,,7R �� w ,. A t iSe r � . '� sr+f� ti. 7,l : ` - - +.� r �, .r b -- f¢�=. r 1 t .0 •• 45 Lt ' -, .. . p � � l f "n t; ..�„__„,(. s- i. '' K4 .r r y .5 ..' :Qn s ` T �? y 't� -''� }� i', r , •3 �� 4:.S - r "- :.H3 t- c 3 4- ? s,.,. J,, 'f a y. ,Erf' S ) i , - n s C - L:b . l: �� . ate w s.T7� �Z� =- �' x-<` . ._:,. .C. -7, #'� 4. h ' >i3 r t -- Fx r C t' �a: 'Y:,.,. ``Y � 12.c . 4 -- ..G - VC : ',f i.T', - f1 "'r tc� ,t `�a -. --. - -. j � :f: " ri_.i+z< -f:Tr �.: ?.:.�Cc_ , ri._: , . - J-- ..;1:.,'s �fC:. - '?'€ , 'fit;, , . ".'i- . ,' .'SVo-ti4`^SC'&C•. ,.r�. Sorrtce: Aerials Express. 2003 Aerial Photograph Exhibit 3 Long Beach Airport Terminal Improvements Project T 2000 0 2000 Feet c o N au r r� .TTTT _ _ s+ms_esm+armWJetenPr Long Beach Airport Terminal Improvement Project uses to the south and west of the Airport. 1-405 and several arterials surround the Airport; however, public access to the terminal area is gained only from Lakewood Boulevard on the east side of the Airport. In 1941, the existing airport terminal was built to serve commercial carrier passengers. In 1984, a new concourse area and pre- boarding lounge were constructed immediately south of the existing terminal building. The 1984 improvements provided capacity for the City's 15 daily flights, better accessibility for patrons with disabilities, improved mobility in the passenger screening process, and improved ticketing and check -in processing of airport users. Between August 2001 and 2004, the number of passengers increased from 600,000 annual passengers to almost 3,000,000 annual passengers. The facilities at the Airport were not designed to adequately accommodate this level of increased number of passengers. To help accommodate the growth, the Airport constructed two temporary holdrooms, temporary remote parking, and a new baggage claim area. TSA started operations at LGB in October 2002 with the screening of passengers. On January 1, 2003, TSA initiated the screening of baggage at the Airport. They currently have 134 employees working at the Airport screening luggage and passengers. In addition, TSA currently has 17 ETD machines at the Airport for screening luggage and six stations for screening passengers. 4.0 Description of the Proposed Project 4.1 Physical Improvements The proposed project provides improvements to the existing terminal and related facilities at LGB in order to accommodate recent increases in flight activity at the Airport as well as increases which may occur in the future consistent with operational limitations of the Airport Noise Compatibility Ordinance and the 1995 Settlement Agreement. The proposed project includes construction of, or alteration to, the 13 areas listed and described below: • Holdrooms • Concession Area • Passenger Security Screening • Baggage Security Screening • Baggage Claim Devices • Baggage Service Office • Restrooms • Office Space • Ticketing Facilities • Airline Gates • Aircraft Parking Positions • Vehicular Parking • Traffic and Pedestrian Circulation The anticipated improvements are described below in more detail; however, during final design, the precise size and configuration of the proposed improvements may vary to ensure compliance with the applicable fire and building codes and with refinement of planning data. The overall size of the terminal facilities would not exceed the square footage requirements discussed below. The terminal improvements are being designed to accommodate the 41 airline flights and 25 commuter flights, passengers associated with those flights, and security requirements imposed by TSA. This flight level is anticipated to result in approximately Initial Study 10 April 14, 2005 Long Beach Airport Terminal Improvement Project 3.8 million annual passengers ( "MAP ") being served at LGB. Considering all terminal improvements, the size of the terminal space would increase from 58,320 square feet to 102,850 square feet. The proposed improvements are discussed below and shown in Table 1. Table 1 also shows the proposed improvements in comparison to other alternatives that will be evaluated in the EIR. Holdrooms Currently, the airport holdrooms are comprised of both the permanent terminal building and temporary modular structures. As part of the proposed project, the 13,150 square feet of temporary holdroom would be replaced with 21,171 square feet of new permanent floor space in the terminal. This, combined with the existing approximately 6,500 square feet of permanent holdrooms, would result in a total of 27,671 square feet of holdroom to accommodate the existing and projected passenger levels. This is a net increase of 8,021 square feet. The square footage for the holdrooms may be split between two structures —north and south holdrooms, similar to what currently exists. Concession Area Expanded concession areas are proposed as an adjunct to the new holdroom areas and in the baggage claim area/public circulation areas to serve the anticipated number of passengers. Currently, there are 5,460 square feet of concessions at the Airport. The proposed project would add an additional 9,541 square feet for this purpose. This would result in a total of 15,001 square feet for concessions. If the holdroom area were split into two separate buildings, the square footage for the concessions would also be split. Passenger Security Screening The existing security screening of both passengers and baggage would be designed to meet the requirements of the TSA for serving the passengers resulting from the minimum number of flights allowed by the Airport Noise Compatibility Ordinance. Currently, there is 3,900 square feet of passenger security screen area. With the proposed project, there would be an additional 7,000 square feet devoted to passenger security screening or a total of 10,900 square feet. If the new holdroom square footage is split into two structures, this additionally required square footage for passenger security screening would also be split into two areas Baggage Security Screening Currently, the Airport does not provide any structure for conducting baggage screening. It has been done under a canopy outside the south holdroom area. The TSA has indicated that this situation is not sufficient because of the sensitivity of the equipment being used. The proposed project would provide a 7,000- square foot structure for security screening of baggage. This structure would house the explosive detection equipment, which includes an in -line baggage conveyor. This facility would need to be located between the terminal building and the aircraft parking positions. Baggage Claim Devices The Airport has 226 linear feet of passenger side baggage claim devices and 180 linear feet for airline loading. The proposed baggage claim area would provide a total of 510 linear feet for passenger side baggage claim and 310 linear feet for airline baggage loading, for a total of 820 linear feet of baggage claim device. Initial Study 11 April 14, 2005 Long Beach Airport Terminal Improvement Project Baggage Service Office and Multi - purpose Room The Airport does not have a baggage service office. The proposed project would allocate a total of 1,200 square feet for this use. This would be comprised of 900 square feet for a baggage service office and 300 square feet for a multi - purpose room. This area would provide a holding place for unclaimed bags, bags that were misdirected, or for reporting lost baggage. The multipurpose room provides on -site meeting space for shift briefings, training, and other meetings for airport and tenant staff whose job duties do not allow them to leave the terminal area. • Restrooms Currently, the Airport has 1,330 square feet of restroom area in non - secure portions of the terminal. As part of the project, there would be an increase of 2,000 square feet in restrooms in non - secure area, for a total of 3,330 square feet of restroom area. Office Space for Security, Airport, and Airline Support Staff Office space, to serve the needs of the TSA, the airlines and airport administration, would be provided within the proposed terminal area. Request for space from the TSA and the airlines are 30,000, and 10,000 square feet, respectively. Though the project would not provide additional space at the requested levels, additional square footage to meet these needs, as well as those of airport staff, has been incorporated into the project. The office space would fall into three categories: TSA, Airlines Operation offices, and Airport administration office and conference area. TSA currently occupies 3,600 square feet in a temporary modular building. This would be replaced with permanent facilities and augmented with an additional 1,591 square feet, for a total of 5,191 square feet. Airlines operation offices are currently housed in 2,000 square feet within the terminal building. An additional 3,784 square feet would be allocated for this use, resulting in a total of 5,784 square feet. Airport offices and conference areas would be increased from 6,970 square feet to 11,970 square feet. Overall, combined office space (i.e., all three categories) at the terminal would increase 10,375 square feet from the current 12,570 square feet to 22,945 square feet. Ticketing Facilities Expansion of the existing ticketing facilities is also proposed to accommodate the existing demand at the Airport.__The ticketing facilities can be broken into four categories: (1) ticket counter area; (2) ticket counter queuing area; (3) airline ticket office; and (4) circulation area for the ticketing area. Ticket counter area is proposed to increase by 680 square feet from 1,250 to 1,930 square feet. Ticket counter queuing area is proposed to increase from 1,400 to 2,800 square feet. The airline ticket office area is proposed to increase by six percent. It would increase from 4,360 square feet to 4,603 square feet. • Initial Study 12 April 14, 2005 Long Beach Airport Terminal Improvement Project Circulation area for the ticketing counter area is proposed to increase by 4,100 square feet from 1,400 to 5,500 square feet. Overall, the combined space for ticketing operations (i.e., all four categories) at the terminal would increase 6,423 square feet from the current 8,410 square feet to 14,833 square feet. Airline Gates The Airport currently has eight aircraft gates for the boarding, loading and unloading of aircraft. With the proposed project this would be increased to 11 gates. At Long Beach Airport, the term "gates" is used to identify the doors in the holdrooms that are used for passenger boarding. Aircraft Parking Positions The Airport currently has 10 aircraft parking positions. The EIR will address increasing the number of aircraft parking positions from 10 to as many as 14 aircraft parking positions. This increase would result in the take -back of property currently leased to Million Air and /or Gulfstream and the displacement of some general aviation parking on the Million Air leasehold and /or aircraft manufacturing facilities on the Gulfstream leasehold. Parking for the displaced aircraft would be provided elsewhere at the Airport. Vehicular Parking Vehicular parking at the Airport is available both onsite (surface lots and parking structure) and offsite in parking lots leased by the Airport from Boeing (Lot D). There are • currently 2,835 permanent parking spaces at the Airport and 2,100 leased spaces. The leased spaces are leased on a month -to -month basis. The project proposes construction of a new parking structure which, combined with the existing parking structure and surface parking, would provide a total of 6,286 spaces. This would eliminate the need for the offsite leased parking spaces. The project would provide 1,351 spaces above the existing number of spaces currently available for airport use. Improvements to the parking structure would include the construction of a new parking structure that would also result in onsite roadway modifications and architectural modifications to the existing parking structure. These modifications would include the following components: a) A new parking structure designed for an estimated 4,000 spaces would be constructed east of the existing parking structure in the area currently used for surface parking. The precise number of parking spaces would be refined during the design of the structure. The structure's location would require the relocation of the east side of the Donald Douglas Drive loop. With the construction of the parking structure, the Airport parking spaces currently leased from Boeing and at Veteran's Stadium would no longer be needed for airport use. Approximately 1,000 parking spaces would be impacted during the construction of the parking structure. b) Proposed modifications to the existing parking structure would include a new facade to match the new parking structure and complement the architecture of the Terminal Building. The facades of the Terminal Building and parking structures would provide a unified appearance and enhance the aesthetics of the terminal area and the terminal's identification as a Cultural Heritage Landmark. Other improvements include replacement of the existing elevator, modifications to the entrances and exits, and, constructed in and /or adjacent to the parking structure, offices for the parking Initial Study 13 April 14, 2005 • Long Beach Airport Terminal Improvement Project management company and offices and public counters for the car rental agencies along with vehicle preparation and ready return vehicle parking areas. c) Proposed modifications to surface Tots would include modified access points, refencing, restriping, signage, etc. Traffic and Pedestrian Circulation Improvements Proposed improvements would include the extension of the south side of the Donald Douglas Drive loop to exit onto Lakewood Boulevard and the addition and /or modifications of signage, lighting, and pavement markings to aid in the safe movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic through the parking structures, Tots and Terminal area. Also proposed are additional and /or modified walkways, some of which would be covered canopies, on the public side of the terminal building, connecting the parking lots to the terminal. 4.2 Operations As previously indicated, the EIR will analyze the impacts associated with the introduction of up to 25 commuter flights that could operate at the Airport consistent with the terms of the Airport Noise Compatibility Ordinance. The EIR will also analyze the impacts associated with up to 52 commercial flights (an increase of 11 flights), which is the maximum reasonable flight level that could potentially occur with optimized operational procedures and aircraft and still be within the "noise bucket" of the Airport Noise Compatibility Ordinance. The project does not propose any changes to the Airport Noise Compatibility Ordinance or other means of directly increasing flight operations at the Airport. These flight levels will be the basis for determining potential environmental impacts for all alternatives, even the No Project Altemative, since the flight increase could occur with or without the proposed improvements. 4.3 Project Phasing The project is designed to accommodate the current minimum permitted number of flights and passenger levels at the Airport. The phasing of the project would be determined based on availability of funding and service priorities. Design of the improvements would begin after the completion of the EIR. Pending funding, it is anticipated that construction of the improvements would begin approximately one year following completion of the EIR. The construction would be phased to minimize impacts to operations at the Airport. Implementation of improvements to serve commuter service would be phased depending on the level of commuter services at the Airport. 4.3 Project Objectives The key project objective is to provide airport terminal facilities to accommodate the minimum permitted number of flights at LGB and the associated number of passengers served on those flights, in full compliance with all applicable fire, building, safety codes and other applicable standards. Associated with that objective is the commitment to compliance with the existing Airport Noise Compatibility Ordinance adopted for the Airport, and maintaining the current character of the Airport as a Long Beach Cultural Heritage Landmark. 5.0 Project Alternatives The City of Long Beach will also evaluate project alternatives providing various levels of facilities improvements. The level of analysis will vary from a comprehensive evaluation to a "fatal flaw" evaluation, which discusses why certain alternatives were not carried forward. The Initial Study 14 April 14, 2005 Long Beach Airport Terminal Improvement Project EIR will consider four project alternatives as well as the proposed project, which is the most intense of the options being evaluated. The characteristics of the alternatives compared to the proposed project are presented in Table 1. Altemative A reflects the improvements proposed in the 2003 NOP, with minor modifications. The 2003 NOP assumed 16 aircraft parking spaces. However, the City Council determined in February 2005 that no more than 14 aircraft parking spaces would be evaluated in the EIR; therefore, the 16 aircraft parking spaces have been reduced 14 spaces. Alternative A assumes the terminal facility would be a maximum of 97,545 square feet. The nature of the improvements would generally be the same as the proposed project, though compared to the proposed project, there are minor reductions in square footage in all except the following categories: • Baggage security screening would be the same as the proposed project. • No additional space is assumed for ticketing facilities. • The amount of airport office space is increased compared to the proposed project. Other aspects of the project, such as the number of gates, aircraft parking and vehicular parking would be the same for Alternative A as for the proposed project. Alternative B assumes the terminal facility is further reduced. This alternative assumes the terminal facility would be a maximum of 79,725 square feet. Similar to Alternative A, the nature of the improvements would generally be the same, though reduced in size compared to the proposed project, with the following exceptions: • Baggage security screening would be the same as the proposed project. • No additional space is assumed for ticketing facilities. • No additional airport office space is assumed as part of this alternative. Other aspects of the project, such as the number of gates, aircraft parking and vehicular parking would be the same for Alternative B as for the proposed project. Alternative C is the No Project Alternative. This alternative assumes no change to existing conditions. The terminal area, including temporary holdrooms, would be 58,320 square feet. There would only be eight airline gates and 10 aircraft parking positions. No new vehicular parking is assumed. - Alternative D is a roll -back alternative. It assumes that no new facilities would be provided and that the temporary facilities currently in use would be removed. The terminal would be limited to the original terminal building and would be 34,570 square feet. There would only be eight airline gates and 10 aircraft parking positions. No new vehicular parking is assumed and the leased parking spaces are assumed not to be available because of the nature (month -to- month) of the lease. • Initial Study 15 April 14, 2005 Long Beach Airport Terminal improvement Project TABLE 1 LONG BEACH AIRPORT PASSENGER TERMINAL IMPROVEMENTS EIR ALTERNATIVES V',N17 a"?..4.P.At PX ';:AicoL go Rivied AlernatiV w IPte A? .::",(ReiiitciltWt ';'AlteniatiVeXii VAltetr iV iite:1 ,5:,, NryvA: . . ‘ g ' .;0. ' kP P. , ?': . .....141 t... ,,,,,,, ... 44*, D e s c n pp on 01,4 is.; ..ii:;.ra t?-.. '.RrOjeCt. :?t,E,aCIlltleS);,7 A (NoRroject):"*,;-:,%;;PA.5,4'.: Holdrooms Permanent Space 6,500 sf 6,500 sf 6,500 sf 6,500 sf 6,500 sf Temporary Space 0 sf 0 sf 0 sf 13,150 sf 0 sf Proposed Additional Space 21,171 sf 20,000 sf 17,580 sf 0 sf 0 sf Subtotal 27,671 sf 26,500 sf _ 24,080 sf 19,650 sf 6,500 sf Passenger Security Screening Existing 3,900 sf 3,900 sf 3,900 sf 3,900 sf 3,900 sf Proposed Additional Space 7000 sf 6,000 sf 5,600 sf 2,000 sf 0 sf Subtotal _ 10,900 sf 9,900 sf 9,500 sf 5,900 sf 3,900 sf Concession Area Permanent Space 5,460 sf 5,460 sf 5,460 sf 5,460 sf 5,460 sf Proposed Additional Space 9,541 sf 8,000 sf 6,400 sf 0 sf 0 sf Subtotal 15,001 sf 13,460 sf 11,860 sf 5,460 sf 5,460 sf Baggage Security Screening 7,000 sf 7,000 sf 7,000 sf 5,000 sf 0 sf Baggage Claim Devices Passenger Side 510 If 380 If 380 If 226 If 130 If Airline Loading Side 310 If 250 If 250 If 180 If 90 If Subtotal 820 If 630 If 630 If 406 If 220 If Baggage Service Office 900 sf 825 sf 825 sf 0 sf 0 sf Multi-Purpose Rooms 300 sf 300 sf 300 sf 0 sf 0 sf Subtotal 1,200 sf 1,125 sf 1,125 sf 0 sf 0 sf Restrooms (non-secure) Permanent Space 1,330 sf 1,330 sf ' 1,330 sf 1,330 sf 1,330 sf Temporary Space 0 sf 0 sf , 0 sf 0 sf 0 sf Proposed Additional Space 2,000 sf 850 sf 850 sf 0 sf 0 sf Subtotal _ 3,330 sf 2,180 sf _ 2,180 sf 1,330 sf 1,330 sf Office Space TSA Temporary Space 3,600 sf 3,600 sf 3,600 sf 3,600 sf 0 sf Proposed Additional Space 1.591 sf 1.400 sf 0 sf 0 sf 0 sf 5,191 sf 5,000 sf _ 3,600 sf 3,600 sf 0 sf Airlines (Operations Offices) Permanent Space 2,000 sf 2,000 sf 2,000 sf 2,000 sf 2,000 sf Temporary Space 0 sf 0 sf 0 sf 0 sf 0 sf Proposed Additional Space . 3,784 sf 5.000 sf 3.000 sf 0 sf 0 sf 5,784 sf 7,000 sf 5,000 sf 2,000 sf _ 2,000 sf Airport (Office & Conference) Permanent Space 6,970 sf 6,970 sf 6,970 sf 6,970 sf 6,970 sf Temporary Space 0 sf 0 sf 0 sf 0 sf 0 sf Proposed Additional Space 5.000 sf 10.000 sf 0 sf 0 sf 0 sf 11,970 sf 16,970 sf 6,970 sf 6,970 sf 6,970 sf Subtotal I 22,945 sf I 28,970 sf I 15,570 sf I . 12,570 sf I 8,970 sf Ticketing Facilities Ticket Counter Area (Existing) 1,250 sf 1,250 sf 1,250 sf 1,250 sf 1,250 sf Proposed Additional Space 680 sf 0 sf 0 sf 0 sf 0 sf 1,930 sf 1,250 sf 1,250 sf 1,250 sf 1,250 sf initial Study 16 Apri114, 2005 Long Beach Airport Terminal improvement Project TABLE 1 LONG BEACH AIRPORT PASSENGER TERMINAL IMPROVEMENTS EIR ALTERNATIVES :0-77-TT:- ,VW"."74:iF>:1:„'i 4 f r.„„%W.OtijOifOlE." l'-ef. ,: :. ,,Vgiiii0geill 41tetnitive i VAR Ale4fhative:;:; ,jAltitivi:i. .V;# StOolig.'0 :10/i1/0410:14 1 5K676 - ii Wilt'? Nfio: Riiiiiag: t:in'15.Vili,P, Ticket Counter Queuing (Existing) 1,400 sf 1,400 sf 1,400 sf 1,400 sf 1,400 sf Proposed Additional Space 1.400 sf 0 sf . 0 sf 0 sf 0 sf 2,800 sf 1,400 sf 1,400 sf 1,400 sf 1,400 sf Airline Ticket Office (Existing) 4,360 sf 4,360 sf 4,360 sf 4,360 sf 4,360 sf Proposed Additional Space 243 sf 0 sf 0 sf 0 sf 0 sf 4,603 sf 4,360 sf 4,360 sf 4,360 sf 4,360 sf Circulation - Ticketing, (Existing) 1,400 sf 1,400 sf 1,400 sf 1,400 sf 1,400 sf Proposed Additional Space 4.100 sf 0 sf 0 sf 0 sf 0 sf 5,500 sf 1,400 sf 1,400 sf 1,400 sf 1,400 sf Subtotal 1 14,833 sf 1 8,410 sf 1 8,410 sf 1 8,410 sf 1 8,410 sf TOTAL 1 102,850 sf 1 97,545 sf 1 79,725 sf 1 58,320 sf 1 34,570 sf Airline Gates 1 11 1 11 1 11 1 81 8 Aircraft Parking Positions 1 12 to 14J 12 to 14 1 12 to 14 1 10 1 10 Vehicular Parking Permanent Non-Leased Spaces 2,835 2,835 2,835 2,835 2,835 Leased Spaces 2, i 00 2,100 2,100 2,100 0 Proposed Additional Spaces 1,351 1,351 1,351 0 0 Total 6,286 6,286 6,286 4,935 2,835 sf square feet If linear feet 1 Represents terminal area as it existed before modulars and parking capacity without leased spaces 2 Permanent floor space in terminal building 3 Temporary floor space in modulars 4 Temporary (modular) space would be replaced with permanent facilities 5 2/08/05 City Council action reflected a range of sf for these areas. The lower end is presented here. Up to 3,000 sf may be added. 5 The 9/22/03 NOP programmed 16 aircraft parking positions. This number was reduced to 12 to 14 by City Council action on 2/08/05. Leased space would be replaced with new parking structure • • initial Study 17 April 14, 2005 • ' t Long Beach Airport Terminal Improvement Project ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS A. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project - level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. B. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by information sources cited by the lead agency. (See "No Impact" portion of Response Column Heading Definition section below). C. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. D. 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. E. The explanation of each issue should identify: • 1. The basis /rationale for the stated significance determination; and 2. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. F. 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. RESPONSE COLUMN HEADING DEFINITIONS A. Potentially Significant Impact is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. B. Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated applies where the implementation of mitigation measures would reduce an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measure(s), and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from earlier analyses may be cross - referenced). C. Less Than Significant Impact applies where the project creates no significant impacts, only Less than Significant Impacts. D. No Impact applies where a project does not create an impact in that category. No impact" answers do not require an explanation if they are adequately supported by the information sources cited by the lead agency which show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project- specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project specific screening analysis). Initial Study 18 April 14, 2005 Long Beach Airport Terminal Improvement Project ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY FOR THE LONG BEACH AIRPORT TERMINAL IMPROVEMENTS Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Impact Mitigation Impact Impact !tialt:AESTHETICSW61 itFe.":247A;;:1 e:r a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? D 0 1111 b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, 0 0 trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the 0 site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would 0 0 0 adverse affect day or nighttime views in the area? IMAGRICIJ: LTURAERESOURM,,:liVotikEtlieliid*ts,;( qc":if. >RAW; a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of o 0 o Fill • Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the Califomia Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson 0 0 Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to 0 0 0 their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? allOAIR=QUALI1WW:ciald: - ""ig;"fi `' a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air 0 0 quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an Oil 0 existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 0 0 0 e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 0 0 0 1 a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat 0 0 modification, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the Califomia Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other 0 0 sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the Califomia Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as 0 0 0 defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vemal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or 0 0 0 migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native nursery sites? Initial Study 19 April 14, 2005 Long Beach Airport Terminal Improvement Project Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Impact Mitigation Impact Impact e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological ❑ ci ❑ El resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? t) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation ❑ ❑ ❑ MI Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? x WoiilS;ffieprbjeof:. =a::.. :X: r,- �y, �'r °° s�,- �:�,s.e .- -''�,� �:a'- :;_`��,;• =� -V. _ x; „'.�xr�.�"s.}�. L°; 9 6. sesC c. '.iF_sF•.- a x- . a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical ❑ ❑ ® ❑ resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an ❑ ® ❑ ❑ archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or ❑ ® ❑ ❑ site or unique geological feature? d) Disturb any human resources, including those interred outside of ❑ ® ❑ ❑ formal cemeteries? 0,I. s; GQI: O. GX 'A1VDSOLI:S- Woiild-tlieprojpd:. 1g;;;t�: t aig .... z: � : r ��: ;:1? • ._i;r4‘.aVit: . >' 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 issues 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 ground-shaking? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ El ❑ iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ IS ❑ b) Result in a substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ III ❑ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would ❑ ❑ ® 0 become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in onsite or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -I -B of the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic ❑ ❑ ❑ Ill tanks or altemative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? ZVII HAZARDSA D_ HAZARDOUSSATE RIALStW:duld`ilie.projeliWg ` �et.i_ ?,,, .- IN , b.. , .:. a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through ❑ ❑ ® ❑ the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through El ❑ ❑ ❑ reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous ® ❑ O ❑ materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter -mile of an existing or proposed school? . d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous ® ❑ 0 ❑ materials sites compiled pursuant to Govemment Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Initial Study 20 April 14, 2005 • Long Beach Airport Terminal Improvement Project Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Impact Mitigation Impact Impact e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a ❑ ❑ ® ❑ plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or people residing or working in a project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the ❑ ❑ ❑ project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted ❑ ❑ ❑ emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 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? NY'll ' t' lYDROLOGW ANDaWATER QUAEITY= W,dirld$ie iojki " „ ':: . � �. �R. . R:a ° :fir:. a..;.: €�s..^� zs . a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ ❑ ® ❑ requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially ❑ ❑ ® ❑ with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding onsite or offsite? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity ❑ ❑ ® ❑ of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of pollutant runoff? t) 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? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would ❑ ❑ ❑ impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or ❑ ❑ ❑ death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ L•` AND.: USEAIVD- PI; ANNIING= Would•tlie:pigjecta`3: -, . ,. - ;r. ° °;:1�:�. ;��,'� = �'• ;'�= "ar:'' .. �:,�•.;���:::' a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plans, 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? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural ❑ ❑ ❑ community conservation plan? Initial Study 21 April 14, 2005 Long Beach Airport Terminal Improvement Project Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Impact Mitigation Impact Impact .3X RESOVRCES.4155(ilMiiiojicf.ifFt: i a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that 0 0 0 would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral 0 0 0 resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? :r-F °4 a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of 0 0 0 standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome 0 0 0 vibration or groundbome noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the 0 0 Ell 0 project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels 0 0 in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a 0 0 0 plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? t) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? fitgcr..41S4V,i, a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for 0 0 0 example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through the extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the 0 0 0 construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the 0 0 0 construction of replacement housing elsewhere? a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered govemment facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Parks 0 0 Fire Protection? 0 0 0 Police Protection 0 0 RI School? 0 0 0 Other public facilities? 0 0 0 - 4IV:REgREATION. ...:15-iar:/n -- ZI.NT:iik . "":;:tt:4 1- :'-' 4 12f.:Itai.' ::4 a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and 0 0 regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the 0 0 0 construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Initial Study 22 April 14, 2005 Long Beach Airport Terminal Improvement Project Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Impact Mitigation Impact Impact XV1hTRANSPORTATION/TRA FFIG:4Wgiuld: the prnj eci: ; a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the 112 0 0 existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service 181 • a o 0 standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase 181 0 in traffic levels or change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp o 0 curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 0 0 f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? o o 0 g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting o 0 alternative transportation (e.g., bus tumouts, bicycle racks)? z'XVLIA,UTIEITIESAND:SERVICEASYSTEMSt7.Wafldlhe.pi a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 0 0 Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater 0 0 181 0 treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage 0 facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from 0 0 181 0 existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider 0 0 0 which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? t) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to 0 o CI accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related o c 0 to solid waste? Nh'Ar�RY IS OF gibNikagair a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the 0 0 181 0 environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of Califomia history or prehistory? b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but o 0 181 cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause 0 181 substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Initial Study 23 April 14, 2005 Long Beach Airport Terminal improvement Project DETERMINATION: Based upon the evidence in light of the whole record documented in the attached environmental checklist explanation, cited incorporations and attachments, I find that the proposed project: COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a negative declaration (ND) will be ❑ prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Article 6, 15070 through 15075. COULD have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures have been added to the project. A negative declaration (ND) will be ❑ prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Article 6, 15070 through 15075. MAY have a significant - ' - • on th environment which has not been analyzed previously. Therefore, an environmental - • ort (E P") is requir =. • Signature: i t Al.... �J ir Printed Name: Angela Reynolds Date: G� - 13 ao05 City of Long Beach Telephone: 562 -570 -6357 • NOTE: All referenced and/or incorporated documents may be reviewed by appointment only, at the City of Long Beach, Planning and Building, 333 W. Ocean Boulevard, Long Beach, California, unless otherwise specified. An appointment can be made by contacting the CEQA Contact Person identified above. • • initial Study 24 April 14, 2005 1 Long Beach Airport Terminal Improvement Project ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AND EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST RESPONSES I. Aesthetics — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact — The project is not located within the viewshed of a designated scenic vista. The area surrounding the site is urbanized and relatively flat. Interstate -405 ( "1- 405 ") and commercial and industrial development border the Airport. Improvements would be limited to the area surrounding the existing terminal and would have minimal affect outside the immediate area. The project would not impact any trees or rock outcroppings. The project is not within viewshed of a state scenic highway. The EIR will not discuss visual impacts associated with these scenic resources. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less Than Significant Impact — The LGB main terminal building was named a City of Long Beach Cultural Heritage Landmark in 1990. The proposed improvements would not directly involve the main terminal building, but would be in the immediate vicinity of the terminal. Additionally, the improvements would be visible from the main terminal building. A project design feature involves providing a complementary architectural facade of the parking structures with the existing terminal building. This would be an enhancement to the aesthetics of the terminal area. Though not a significant impact, the EIR will address the potential visual affects of the project so the decision - makers have a full understanding of the potential change in visual character of the terminal area. There are no sensitive uses, such as residential development, within the project viewshed; therefore, the visual evaluation in the EIR will focus on the changes in the vicinity of the terminal. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adverse affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact — The project would result in new lighting at the Airport including, but not limited to, the lighting surrounding the holdrooms, on pedestrian walkways, the parking structure, and apron areas. The improvements and associated lighting would be limited to the area immediately adjacent to the terminal. This lighting would be adequate for operation, but would not result in an adverse affect on day or night views in the area because lighting would be required to comply with FAA rules and regulations pertaining to minimizing glare and shielding lighting from pilots. As a result, there would be minimal spillover lighting to offsite uses. The terminal area is set back from other uses off the Airport and is not directly visible from view sensitive uses, such as residential development. The closest existing residential development to the terminal area is approximately 3,300 feet away and is separated by commercial uses and the Skylinks Golf Course. There are no sensitive uses in proximity to the proposed improvements that would be affected by lighting associated with the project. No further discussion of lighting impacts will be provided in the EIR. Initial Study 25 April 14, 2005 Long Beach Airport Terminal Improvement Project II. Agriculture Resources — Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use? No Impact — The proposed project would not result in any impacts to farmlands listed as "Prime," "Unique," or of "Statewide Importance" based on the 1998 Los Angeles County Important Farmland Map prepared by the Department of Conservation. The study area is generally designated as "Urban and Built -Up Land." No farmland exists in proximity to the project. No part of the project site or adjacent areas is subject to the Williamson Act. The project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural uses and would not result in pressures to convert farmlands to other uses. The EIR will not address agricultural impacts. III. Air Quality — Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Potentially Significant Impact — The proposed project would result in the construction of terminal area improvements. These activities may result in emissions that exceed the standards established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. To fully address the potential impacts, the EIR will: • Determine existing ambient air quality in the vicinity of the Airport; • Quantify existing emissions at the Airport; • Predict future emissions and ambient air quality concentrations with the project and its alternatives, and the associated air quality impacts regionally and in the vicinity of the Airport; • Determine consistency of the project with applicable air quality plans and policies; and • Propose mitigation measures to reduce the potential impacts associated with the project, if necessary, and to the extent reasonable and feasible. In addition, the EIR will include a health risk assessment. The modeling that will be used in developing emission inventories, conducting air dispersion analyses, and evaluating health risks associated with on- airport source operations and modifications will include the FAA Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System, the Air Resources Board ( "ARB ") on -road emission factor model, the ARB OFFROAD mobile source emission model, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dispersion models. Approximately 20 toxic compounds will be analyzed at up to 220 receptor locations. The receptors to be analyzed will include several onsite locations that represent worker (ground handler) exposure points, and 200 discrete receptors located at the airport boundary and beyond to assess impacts to residential, school child, offsite worker, and other sensitive receptor locations. Initial Study 26 April 14, 2005 Long Beach Airport Terminal Improvement Project The potential incremental chronic cancer risks and non - cancer hazards for the set of critical receptors previously determined (fenceline, maximum exposed individuals ( "MEI ") on- and offsite, school children) will be estimated. Incremental risks and hazards reflect the increase or decrease of potential exposure of build scenarios relative to existing baseline. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact. The project proposes the construction of terminal area improvements that would serve passengers at the Airport. The project would not create objectionable odors because it would not change the operations or function of the facilities in the terminal area. The project is designed to serve permitted passengers. No new uses would be introduced to the area. IV. Biological Resources — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 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 nursery sites? No Impact — The proposed airport improvements would be constructed on a portion of the Airport that is currently developed /paved to support airport- associated activities. The project would not have any direct impact on biological resources because it would not result in the removal of any sensitive habitat or impact any sensitive species. The project would not change the type of operations or operational procedures at the Airport; therefore, the project would not result in substantial interference with the movement of wildlife or migration of birds. Though there are some wildlife species that occupy the Airport area (e.g., red foxes, rabbits, raptors, and other avian species), these species are not located in the portion of the Airport where improvements are proposed. Given the history of flights at the Airport, it can be assumed that the existing wildlife has habituated to the noise and other indirect impacts associated with aircraft operations. Additionally, the Airport has incorporated measures, such as a Bird Hazard Reduction Plan, to reduce potential direct impacts to wildlife species. The Airport has also contracted with a falconer who traps and relocates raptors from the runways and approach ends of the Airport. The project would not alter the implementation of these programs, which have been designed to reduce potential direct impacts to wildlife from Airport operations. The area surrounding the airport is also highly urbanized. There are no designated critical habitat areas or wildlife refuge areas surrounding the Airport. Therefore, no significant biological impacts are anticipated from the project. This issue will not be addressed in the EIR. • Initial Study 27 April 14, 2005 Long Beach Airport Terminal Improvement Project e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact — The project would not result in the removal of any resources that would be protected by a local ordinance or policy. As previously indicated, the locations where improvements are proposed do not support any sensitive resources. Additionally, the Airport is not included in a local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The project would not change the operational characteristics of the Airport; therefore, the project would not conflict with the requirements of the Migratory Bird Act. No further analysis of local biological planning programs will be discussed in the EIR. V. Cultural Resources — Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? Less Than Significant Impact — As previously indicated, the terminal building has been designated as a Cultural Historical Landmark. The proposed project would not have any direct • impacts on the terminal building. The EIR will incorporate the findings of a study by an architectural historian on the potential indirect impacts and the effects of the project on the historical attributes of the building and its environment. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? d) Disturb any human resources, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation — The project would not be expected to have an impact on archaeological or paleontological resources because the project site is currently developed. However, there is the potential for subsurface resources. Given that the area is currently paved or covered by buildings, this is difficult to determine. An archaeological record search will be conducted as part of the analysis in the EIR. Mitigation measures, such as construction monitoring when subsurface work is conducted, will be developed as part of the EIR to address protection of potential archaeological and paleontological resources. VI. Geology and Soils — Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issues 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 ground shaking? iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in a substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Initial Study 28 April 14, 2005 Long Beach Airport Terminal Improvement Project c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in onsite or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact — The area of the proposed improvements is relatively flat and is currently covered by an impervious surface. Construction activities would expose the underlying soils; however, the overall area exposed would be limited. Additionally, since the area is currently designed for runoff to drain away from the existing structures, the area would be exposed to limited wind or water erosion. The project site would not be prone to geotechnical constraints such as slope instability or landslides because the site is relatively flat. There are no slopes, either natural or man -made, located within the immediate project area. Based on information in the Long Beach Seismic Safety Element of the General Plan, the site would have a low potential for liquefaction. A recent geotechnical survey conducted by the City of Long Beach for the existing parking structure at the Airport concluded that the potential for the site to be impacted by earthquakes, seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, substantial soil erosion, or unstable or expansive soil is negligible. The geographic characteristics of the study area are identical to those of the parking garage. No further discussion of these issues will be contained in the EIR. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact — The project would not rely on septic tanks or alternative waste water disposals systems; therefore, the soils ability to support septic tanks is not applicable. VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials — Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact — The project would not result in a significant hazard from the transport of hazardous materials. The project does not propose the alteration of airport practices regarding the handling of hazardous materials, fueling, or other maintenance or operational procedures. The project would not require the routine transport of any hazardous materials. During construction materials identified as having a hazardous component, such as paints and other construction materials, would be brought to the site; however, handling of these materials in compliance with existing regulations would provide a sufficient safeguard to public safety. No further discussion of this issue will be contained in the EIR. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Potentially Significant Impact — Hazardous materials have been located and used on the project site and surrounding uses. The EIR will review and summarize the findings of a hazardous materials government records search identifying location of past spills, leaking tanks, or other potential safety risks. The records search is a radius search of governmental records Initial Study 29 April 14, 2005 • Long Beach Airport Terminal Improvement Project for Phase I preliminary site assessments. Maps and site - specific detail information identify risk sites by their distance from the project site will be incorporated. Available information on methane gas and subsoil materials will be incorporated into the EIR. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter -mile of an existing or proposed school? Potentially Significant Impact — The project site is not within one quarter -mile of any existing or proposed schools. However, a human health risk assessment will be prepared as part of the • EIR that will address potential impacts on schools in close proximity to the airport. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in a project area? • Less Than Significant Impact— The project is located at an airport. The project is consistent with the provisions of the Airport land use plan, in that it is providing facilities to support the ongoing airport operations. The project does not propose any changes in the number of flights, the flight patterns, or the operational procedures at the Airport that would result in increased safety hazards offsite. The EIR will not analyze these safety issues. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact — The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip; therefore, this does not apply. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact — The project would not alter or interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Improvements would be limited to on- airport property and would not alter the access. Access to the project site is off of Lakewood Avenue, which is not designated as an evacuation route. No further discussion of emergency evacuation or response plans will be in the EIR. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of Toss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact — The project site is not located in an area subject to wildland fires. The area surrounding the Airport is urbanized and the conditions for wildland fires do not exist in close proximity. This issue will not be analyzed in the EIR. VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality — Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies • or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? Initial Study 30 April 14, 2005 Long Beach Airport Terminal Improvement Project c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding onsite or offsite? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of pollutant runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less Than Significant Impact — The proposed project involves the development of improvements to the Airport terminal area. The area proposed for development is currently paved or covered by structures. As a result, the improvements would not result in a substantial increase in impervious soil, or result in increased runoff. This development would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or affect the quality or quantity of the groundwater table. The Federal Clean Water Act establishes a framework for regulating potential surface water quality impacts, mandating sewage treatment, and regulating wastewater discharges, and requires communities and industries to obtain National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( "NPDES ") permits to discharge storm water to urban storm sewer systems. The NPDES program is administered by the California Regional Water Quality Control Boards ( "RWQCB "). The project would be required to comply with the requirements of the existing NPDES permits. Construction activities would need to comply with the requirements of the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit, 99- 08 -DWQ), which requires the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. The SWPPP is required to identify Best Management Practices (BMP) for the control of potential erosion, siltation, and other water quality impacts that may occur during construction. A SWPPP typically contains a list of target structural and non - structural best management practices, which would be used to control, prevent, remove, or reduce pollution. In addition to the requirements of the NPDES program, provisions of the Uniform Building Code, grading permits requirements, and Fire Code provisions include elements that also require reduction of erosion and sedimentation impacts. The operation of the Airport would be required to comply with the Municipal Storm Water permit issued to the City of Long Beach (NPDES Permit No. 99 -060; CAS004003 /CI 8052). To comply with the requirements of the Clean Water Act and the State Porter - Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the City has developed the Long Beach Storm Water Management Program, which contains measures aimed at reducing or eliminating pollutants in storm water to the maximum extent practicable. These include post - construction structural or treatment control BMP design to mitigate (infiltrate or treat) runoff produced from a 0.75 -inch storm event prior to discharging to a storm water conveyance system. By treating the "first flush" from a storm, the highest concentrations of pollutants are removed from the water entering into the storm drain system. Full compliance with applicable local, state, and federal water quality standards by the applicant would reduce water quality impacts to a less than significant level. The project would not result in the alteration of the course of a stream or river in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite. Neither is it anticipated that project implementation would alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area through the alteration of the course of a stream or river. The EIR will not analyze these issues related to hydrology and water quality. initial Study 31 April 14, 2005 Long Beach Airport Terminal Improvement Project g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood - Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other.flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact — The proposed project consists of terminal improvements and does not lie within a 100 -year flood hazard area nor would it alter the flood zone. As such, project implementation would not place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. No structures that would impede or redirect flood flows would be placed within a 100 -year flood hazard area because the proposed project does not lie within a 100 -year flood hazard area. Additionally, people and structures would not be exposed to a significant risk of Toss injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. The proposed project does not Iie in close proximity to a levee or dam. Neither is there a risk of inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow; therefore, no impact is expected. These issues will not be analyzed in the EIR. • IX. Land Use and Planning — Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact — The proposed improvements would occur on the airport property and would not result in modifications to land uses offsite. The project would not physically divide any established communities because all improvements would be limited to airport property. The EIR will not include any further discussion of physical impacts on an established community. . However, the EIR will address potential onsite land use impacts, including the relocation of existing general aviation tie -down area. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plans, 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? Potentially Significant Impact— The EIR will document existing land uses on and surrounding the Airport. The EIR will evaluate the consistency of the project with the applicable policies in the Long Beach General Plan and the applicable Planned Development zoning designation. At a minimum, the Land Use Element, Noise Element, Open Space Element, and Public Safety Element will be evaluated. In addition to applicable goals and policies from the General Plan, the analyses would include applicable planning policies identified in regional planning documents, such as the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide and Regional Transportation Plan that will need to be addressed. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact — The project is not located in a reserve area of a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The project site and surrounding areas are developed and do not support substantial amounts of sensitive resources. Initial Study 32 April 14, 2005 Long Beach Airport Terminal Improvement Project X. Mineral Resources — Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No Impact — The California Division of Mines and Geology ( "CDMG ") is the state agency with the responsibility to oversee the management of mineral resources in California. The CDMG considers a site to be significant in regard to mineral commodities if the site can be mined commercially and there must be enough of the resource to be economically viable. There are no such resources onsite. There would be no significant impacts to mineral resources from the proposed project. The EIR will not analyze impacts to mineral resources. XI. Noise — Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact — The proposed project would not be expected to have a significant impact on the noise environment because it does not propose changes in operations that would result in "noise bucket" established by the Airport Noise Compatibility Ordinance being exceeded. The EIR will document the existing noise environment and the future noise environment with and without the project. This analysis will use noise data collected at the LGB noise monitoring stations to establish existing cumulative CNEL noise levels and representative single event noise levels. The evaluation will also utilize the maximum CNEL contours permitted by current City regulations. The EIR will explain the noise budget that operates at LGB. The EIR will also address short-term construction noise associated with the proposed improvements. The LGB noise budget serves as a mitigation measure. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact — The project does not propose changes to the type of operations at LGB; therefore, • it would not result in excessive groundbome vibration during operation. However, there is the potential for construction noise and vibration. The project is not in the vicinity of a private airstrip. As indicated above, the EIR will analyze the noise environment surrounding the airport facility. Initial Study 33 April 14, 2005 Long Beach Airport Terminal Improvement Project XII. Population and Housing — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through the extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact — The project would not result in substantial growth inducing impacts or result in changes in population projections for the project study area. The improvements proposed at LGB are designed to serve the approved flight levels at the Airport. It would not result in increased flight levels or employment levels that would result in an increased demand for housing in the area. Improvements would occur on airport property so there would not be any displacement of existing housing to permit the terminal area improvements. Therefore, there would be no need for construction of replacement housing. Additionally, the project would not change the noise budget for LGB resulting in potential displacement of housing to achieve noise /land use compatibility. No further discussion of population or housing is proposed in the EIR. XIII. Public Services Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government . facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Parks? Schools? No Impact — The proposed terminal improvements would not result in an increase in demand for schools and parks. The project would not result in an increase in population or other characteristics that would increase the demand for these facilities. Since the project would not change the number of flights, the type of aircraft, or the operational procedures at the Airport, there would not be any increase in noise from the Airport and the associated indirect impact to parks and schools. Fire protection? Police protection? Less Than Significant Impact — The project would not be expected to substantially increase the demand for fire and police services. However, this issue will be addressed in the EIR. The EIR will document the anticipated change in emergency response times and need for additional services as a result of the proposed terminal improvements. Other public facilities? Less Than Significant Impact — The project would result in additional maintenance responsibilities for the Airport because of the increased size of the facilities; however, this would not be expected to be a significant increase and the additional cost associated with maintenance would be covered through the use of airport fees. City General Funds would not be used to Initial Study 34 April 14, 2005 Long Beach Airport Terminal Improvement Project provide maintenance of airport facilities. No further discussion of increased maintenance demand will be addressed in the EIR. XIV. Recreation a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact — The project would not generate any increase in population or provide development that would result in increased usage of existing neighborhood and regional parks. There would not be any physical deterioration to existing recreation facilities due to the project. This issue will not be analyzed in the EIR. XV. Transportation/Traffic — Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the • number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Potentially Significant Impact — The EIR will address the potential traffic impacts associated with the project. • The evaluation will compare existing and future conditions with and without the terminal improvements. The analysis will include peak hour trip distribution patterns of the proposed airport terminal improvements project based on likely origins and destinations of passengers and employees. The evaluation will also include a freeway link analysis. Additionally, the future conditions evaluation will take into consideration traffic generated by other proposed projects in the study area. The EIR will include an evaluation of parking requirements and how the project and alternatives address them. Zoning will be the basis for determining the applicable parking requirements. The short-term construction impacts on parking, including the identification of locations for replacement parking to mitigate the impacts of parking that would be displaced during construction of the parking structure, will also be addressed. Initial Study 35 April 14, 2005 Long Beach Airport Terminal Improvement Project XVI. Utilities and Service Systems — Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact. Wastewater service is provided by the Long Beach Water Department. The project would be expected to have an incremental increase in water demand because there would be additional facilities, including new restroom facilities, at the airport. The project may result in slightly increased peak flow rates, though the overall increase would not be substantial enough to require expansion of existing facilities. For the Airport, the number of passengers being served is more of a determining factor in the generation for wastewater rather than the size of the facilities. Given that the number of passengers being served would be the same with any of the alternatives, including the No Project Alternative, the project would not be expected to substantially increase the amount of wastewater generated. Sufficient wastewater treatment capacity exists to serve the level of demand anticipated from the proposed project. Impacts associated wastewater treatment would be Tess than significant and will not be analyzed in the EIR. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Less Than Significant Impact. Water service to the project site is provided by the Long Beach • Water Department, which obtains its water supply from a combination of groundwater wells and water purchased from the Metropolitan Water District. The project would be expected to have an incremental increase in water demand because there would be additional facilities at the airport. However, the number of passengers being served is more of a determining factor in the overall demand for water service rather than the size of the facilities. Given that the number of passengers being served would be the same with any of the altematives, including the No Project Alternative, the project would not be expected to substantially increase the demand for water beyond the current entitlements. The project would not require a water supply assessment pursuant to Senate Bill 610 because the size of the improvements is well below the thresholds used in SB 610 or the State Water Code. As part of routine plan check, a Fire Flow Test may be required, though based on discussion with the Long Beach Water Department, the 12 inch water main in Lakewood Boulevard would have sufficient to provide necessary water supply to meet demand. Impacts on water resources would be less than significant and will not be analyzed in the EIR. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less Than Significant Impact. The project would have the potential to increase the amount of solid waste both through construction and operation of the new facilities. Though the number of Initial Study 36 April 14, 2005 Long Beach Airport Terminal Improvement Project passengers would be consistent for each of the project alternatives (including the No Project Alternative), it is reasonable to assume that additional waste would be generated with the new facilities because there would be increased concessions and better facilities where passengers may be more inclined to use the concession areas. However, this incremental increase would not be expected to result in a significant impact. In compliance with the California Integrated Waste Management Act passed in 1989 [State Assembly Bill (AB) 939], the City of Long Beach has developed programs to divert the amount of refuse that is sent to landfills through waste reduction, recycling, and business and government source reduction programs. Each trash hauler is required to have a City- approved recycling program to ensure that the goal of 50 percent reduction in solid waste streams mandated by AB 939 is achieved. One way that the City of Long Beach achieves this reduction is a majority of solid waste collected from within the City of Long Beach is disposed of at the Southeast Resource Recovery Facility (SERRF), a transformation facility owned and operated by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County located in the City of Long Beach. The SERRF, which receives the majority of the City's solid waste, has a permitted capacity of 2,240 tonnage per day. The refuse sent to the SERRF is incinerated in boilers, creating steam that is used to drive a turbine generator, which in turn, produces electricity. This energy is used to power SERRF operations, and the remainder is sold to the Southern California Edison Company for public use. The City of Long Beach receives a ten percent waste diversion credit through use of the SERRF, thereby raising the City's waste diversion rate to 55 percent. This program would continue to apply ongoing operations at the airport. The seven Class III landfills that receive the majority of solid waste from the City of Long Beach have a combined capacity of approximately 170 million tons. The permit expiration for these facilities extends from January 2007 for Bradley Landfill in Los Angeles to January 2040 for the Prima Deshecha Landfill in San Juan Capistrano. The project would not significantly impact the • capacity of these combined facilities. The construction activities would also generate inert debris, such as concrete and materials from demolition. Senate Bill 1374 (Construction and Demolition Waste Material: Diversion Requirements), passed in 2002 focuses on the reduction of construction and demolition waste sent to landfills. To comply with this bill, a standard specification in all City contracts requires that the contractor recycle such wastes. This ensures this material is not disposed of in landfills. With the implementation of the standard conditions and regulations that are already in place, the project would not have a significant impact on solid waste facilities and would comply with all federal, state and local requirements pertaining to solid waste disposal. No further discussion of solid waste disposal needs will be addressed in the EIR. Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past Initial Study 37 April 14, 2005 • Long Beach Airport Terminal Improvement Project projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant The project has the potential of having significant effects directly and indirectly on human beings. It is anticipated that there would be significant construction air quality impacts. The EIR will evaluate the potential cumulative impacts associated with other projects in the study area. 'References City of Long Beach, Department of Planning and Building. Conservation Element, City of Long Beach General Plan Program. April 1973. Environmental Impact Report for Douglas Park (formerly PacifiCenter @Long Beach) State Clearinghouse Number 200105048. December 2004. Final Environmental Impact Report E -45-85 for the Airport Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study, State Clearinghouse Number 86012911. June 1986. Initial Study and Subsequent Negative Declaration for the Proposed Amendments to the Long Beach Noise Ordinance Pertaining to Operations at the Long Beach Airport. February 1995. • —. Land Use Element of the Long Beach General Plan. April 1997. Public Safety Element, General Plan Program. May 1975. Water Department. Personal Communication with Larry Oaks. April 2005. United States Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services. Wildlife Hazards Assessment for Long Beach Airport Los Angeles County, California (March 2001 - February 2002). 2002. R:\Projects%LongBeach0001\NOP NOP-041305.doc Initial Study 38 April 14, 2005 City Comment Letter re: Notice of Preparation and Scoping — Long Beach Airport Terminal Area Improvement Project City Council Staff Report April 25, 2005 ATTACHMENT 3 REDUCED SIZE PLAN - SRFP CONCEPT FOR TERMINAL IMPROVEMENTS • 1 1 Long Beach Airport Terminal NOP 2.CC Staff Report.04 -19 -05 . . — I . _ ^ r • ; I li .•• t: - 1 tl : • f l . l e ; 1 1 4 1 I Yil 0 el ,2%..,,t. 1., t p 14 ,, 41 1 i 1 . ,-. : s . 1 ..,.. tr s g ,: -.1 i ,... 11 .),.. , I. t ..iNli 41; • . t• !:•••• — •• . 4 's . • ,i t •Arik ° • i,,k1 1 .. ; '. I • : 1 - It 1 , • ...4„..., 1:,19i,..„„...,„flt v. c: t i . I. - . ,i t ,, .. i .... 1 . ...itl. -', 1-:r . i - 7 3 1 . .#4 • .1 : 1 *e -I.. I • l i 1 t 1 1 . • - ;1 - ' ' '' ; ; LI r ;"'- - c 11;"%, f ,..• • • • ••• i i.. I ,i 4 1 , 4 I i D 11 ' r,ta :II • .Far!‘, (.;.r.‘. *: 4." . 1 tg, 1 a --.- - '—'' •-• I r I 1 , . ,, " ...76... 2. ). i e ( I t• ). t, f _ I.; ._. s,.._ ,, ... .... W A a - - 3` 1 1),„ ... : • . 4 , • Cn . 7 - : I • • • 12 •••• • j - .... ' 41 . .... :,••••' : °•.: • "2' er :: :.. 0 • 1 . . ‘''' ,. .1 :.• • .t":;;;,t / r., - t OA 1 I $' I •■ • ) • , .... c 4 •. to 4. a tlui 4 i f, , §-, 1 ,,,... ; -, 4 6 ,,,,• 1 , • ir -,-.4-1,2210,-- 1,A , p- 4, . pia - - - • , . ' , ' , '.'''-'. i i . • > - 41, 1 4.,.......71.16 7 i • : ! —,........,fr : , 0 • i •1, P • ': '" f •. --"-- • ' . • i • _ _ 1 I ..... , 47 , 1 1 L. ' . • ,L 5,- _ ........, . 1...- .J 4 $ t 1 .. : , , . .. . : • $ 0 ' -. ' 1 ... L ,...i 1 z., • ; :0 p l • ,....-. :. - - - - 1 --.......-nrct-b.i.:1 ....1 1 • 41 ," :Ii ' -. - .. -•Ii■ .4,4. ... , ... ....... . ... . c...i.. - I ' .1 i. lk r -•• " . - . . 4" • •2 4 ,.. .. „ • II .. .,, .. .. . il, ,„ - ' • ,, : , IA- 4.. , i.--,....„" ,. '„Ifi 1 ■ 1141'1_1qm" MP 0- -71°;11 a „, r al. fe47*. 1 ' ..."-' # ••'• !IA OP • tIlInifini ..1 Lim 0 r • vil:...4.. • • ' %. -4 .1 . 4. :. z a: ,,,..-.=!mx--....!_-- ,, • ' , , !,/,',..:-:... fiailmiomminioni Alliii D ,. 1.. I i.4 ' ' p. .% , 1 ..L , ...; ma fall% , e 4 , L as i . V R __,,,■ s t t i 1 i 1 LI jrg ••&#. F r 74 0 i . . i I • . . .° . it. - ‘,‘, ,t,.. - , ......A6*.int r a° 4'„; , 'N' 141) %-..-1 2 . 11 ,,,,_ ,..... ,-- 1., V If -- N 1 I 4 • 1,. , 1 • , 'L . , `,,t.. $ ' ii — — ' .. C. ", ,:o ....... ■ 1 , ;,,...t. 1 .1141114N I ' o t r.... I I . Ft r ii r a l! 7 el ' i la sm.- . 4 bk ■ • i Z 0 N "- t:: 4 il - '° r l■ 0 g al , C.) ! ., . , P . 4 • ).,.....m2,/rel.r....1, ., 1 ■ . , 'v.. . 1. _ .stite.ti..... ■ 4,-4 " .-- r'er r e... ''. **AI* 2 • • ...., Oft 1 V/ 1* ""•• %., _. ....... i '-, • . - L ' " ",,, . •-•• -1 e la l lbi , k I gOlifrit - — 1 V . i 1 . .**4' W''•; ' — tc. ...74100 , • _ ,.. _......II4 9 9 ... ...... _ . ..... q ! : r ..."- ..... , . . ::....t...._ . . . Z., • j , I 1 t-i : : ,../ A: • ....... , ., . .::. . .. I. , .....r . • - ', ..t.. • „ , ..‘1 ,,,,„„ P .. vs ! - ..- .,. :gat; 1 . J - t: ,,,,. te,„ - •• City Comment Letter re: Notice of Preparation and Scoping — Long Beach Airport Terminal Area Improvement Project City Council Staff Report April 25, 2005 ATTACHMENT 4 LONG BEACH AIRPORT WEB PAGE INFORMATION AVAILABLE AT WWW.LGB.ORG AND DOWNLOADED ON APRIL 19, 2005: ❑ HOME PAGE - LONG BEACH AIRPORT - 2 PAGES ❑ LONG BEACH AIRPORT EIR TERMINAL FACILITIES PRESENTATION, CITY COUNCIL STUDY . WORKSHOP, JANUARY 4, 2005 - 63 PAGES ❑ LONG BEACH AIRPORT MONTHLY NOISE REPORT, NOISE STATISTICS - COMPLAINTS AND VIOLATIONS -1 PAGE ❑ LONG BEACH AIRPORT MONTHLY NOISE REPORT: ❑ NOISE STATISTICS FOR FEBRUARY 2005, 3 PAGES ❑ NOISE STATISTICS FOR JANUARY 2005, 2 PAGES 12 Long Beach Airport Terminal NOP 2.CC Staff Report.04 -19 -05 City of Long Beach, CA - Airport Page 1 of 2 Low Graphics Version lcigteachk 4ar- airport ,�- �,,- ' l uesday, April 19, 21 city him ©' city offi iafs ecit yidir',vcf o yjse vies a` Perr Homepage > Departments > Public Works > Airport Airport Homepage Welcome to Long Beach Airport Join our E -Notify Directions Parking Long Beach Airport situated midway between Los Angeles and Orange Count Airline Travelers ► Long Beach offers easy access to the area's business centers and massi■ consumer markets. Long Beach Airport provides a degree of ground and s Pilot/Airfield Info ► transportation convenience that is unparalleled in Southern California, and tF Noise Abatement ► oa1yam lowest -cost parking in the region. Airport Businesses '*f AI _I Known as the Region's "Easy In, Easy Out" Airport, Long Beach Airport hos •Y�' M Airport Statistics Alaska Airlines, American Airlines, America West Airlines and JetBlue Airway (:pr� offering direct flights throughout the United States with easy Domestic ar About us ► i L LUUU B�� ll lh� l' International connections. Contact Us fl 111 P 0 T True to its history, Long Beach Airport is one of the world's busiest ciener ' '� aviation airports, serving privately -owned aircraft. A full array of aviation suppo '( manufacturing and business services is readily available. Convenience and charm combine to make flying Long Beach Airport a gre adventure. NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND SCOPING Long Beach Airport Terminal Improvement Project Click here to download complete document (2.3 MB) An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required to evaluate the potential impacts associated with the proposed LB Airport Terminal Area Improvement Project. Your comments and suggestions regarding the environmental issues to be addressed in the EIR are important. You are invited to one of these meetings to provide oral or written comments: Thursday, April 28, 2005, 6 p.m. - 9 p.m. Saturday, May 7, 2005, 10 a.m. -1 p.m. Both meetings will be held at Long Beach Energy, 2400 Spring St. The proposed improvement project includes improving concession areas, passenger & baggage security screening, baggage claim devices and offices, restrooms, office space, ticketing facilities, gates, aircraft parking positions, vehicle parking areas and traffic and pedestrian circulation. http: / /www.longbeach.gov /airport/ 4/19/2005 City of Long Beach, CA - Airport Page 2 of 2 Latest News Archives... Copyright © 2000 - 2005 Privacy Policy City of Long Beach, 333 W. Ocean Blvd, Long Beach, CA 90802 Tel: (562) 570 -6555 http: / /www.longbeach.gov /airport/ 4/19/2005 ! of Long Beach, CA - Monthly Report Page 1 of 1 Low Graphics Version on goeach „-!-1 jobs contact us H� F • , + r " airport ; - Tuesday, April 19, 2005 1 1 go) Lcity home city afficiats city directory • city services calendars frequently asked questions Homepage >_ > Airport > Noise Abatement > Monthly Report Email Print 1 Airport Homepage Monthly Noise Report Join our E- Notify Directions NOISE STATISTICS - COMPAINTS & VIOLATIONS Parking Airline Travelers / • FEBRUARY 2005 Pilot/Airfield Info ► JANUARY 2005 DECEMBER 2004 Noise Abatement / NOVEMBER 2004 Airport Businesses OCTOBER 2004 SEPTEMBER 2004 Airport Statistics AUGUST 2004 About Us ► JULY 2004 Contact Us JUNE 2004 MAY 2004 APRIL 2004 MARCH 2004 FEBRUARY 2004 JANUARY 2004 Long Beach Airport Ph: 562 - 570 -2678 i Fax: 562 - 570 -2603 4100 Donald Douglas Dr., Long Beach, CA 90808 -1798 • 1y�r�o Email: lgbarpt @longbeach.gov waa.11111111ruIIIII 1 L000BQN . ► AIRPORT Copyright © 2000 - 2005 Privacy Policy Top •(*./' City of Long Beach, 333 W. Ocean Blvd, Long Beach, CA 90802 Tel: (562) 570 -6555 Powered by c Ata http: / /www.longbeach.gov/ airport / noise _abatement /monthly_report.asp 4/19/2005 City of Long Beach Memorandum -°- Working Together to Serve ...00W Date: March 17, 2005 To: Airport Advisory Commission From: Ken Ashmore, Operations Specialist, Airport Bureau Subject: NOISE STATISTICS FOR FEBRUARY 2005 Noise Complaints Type of Operator February 2005 January 2005 February 2004 Air Carriers 181 170 122 General Aviation Jets 49 35 16 General Aviation Props 20 10 5 Industrial 1 0 0 Unknown Source 0 0 0 Subtotal 251 215 143 Other Operations February 2005 January 2005 February 2004 General Aviation Helicopters 5 5 3 Military/Public/Air Ambulance 2 6 0 Helicopters Military/Public/Air Ambulance 11 9 20 Jets, Props Subtotal 18 20 23 Grand Total 269 213 166 • Number of complainants: 71 • 13 of the 269 complaints related to operations that were in violation of the City's noise compatibility ordinance. Aircraft operations receiving five or more complaints Date Time Operator Type Arrival /Departure Runway dB SENEL Complaints 02/16/05 10:08 PM JetBlue A320 Departure 30 92.9 9 02/24/05 10:47 PM JetBlue A320 Departure 30 93.3 8 02/21/05 01:59 PM U.S. Air Force C -17 Arrival 12 106.4 7 02/24/05 10:27 PM Jet Blue A320 Departure 30 95.0 6 02/05/05 01:16 AM Private L -1011 Departure 30 104.7 5 02/16/05 10:33 PM JetBlue A320 Departure 30 91.3 5 02/22/05 10:07 PM JetBlue A320 Departure 12 93.5 5 02/24/05 10:40 PM JetBlue A320 Departure 30 93.5 5 Z 1... U oc Q U1 i 0 0 m 0 (d o N gg • Z " gs U O N J Q . zw J / . . . , . 7 - ' • Ilk\ :O • _ mi a ...-_- ' • • ••" / %u r O 1 ^ • • • • u J • • • a V • • "I ey • • _ a • • • • j / / o • 0 iI /y • , � rte., - -• i 1 i . . -... • • •. • •• + ..-- 10 1111111111 _____ ____ • `✓ AWN k. NS . _--__ Noise Violations Violation Number February 2005 January 2005 February 2004 1S 8 7 6 2n 1 2 0 3rd 1 0 2 4 5 9 6 Total 15* 18 14 • *Equates to 0.06% of the Airport's 25,144 aircraft operations during the month. • 0.09% of air carrier operations (2 of 2,122) resulted in noise violations. Violations in the " 4 th +" category Date Time Operator Type Arrival/ Runway dB Departure SENEL 02/05/05 01:01 AM Private Lear 36 Arrival 30 86.7 02/12/05 01:08 AM Private Lear 60 Arrival 30 85.4 02/18/05 04:56 PM UPS B767 -300 Arrival 12 105.6 02/18/05 08:02 AM Private Gulfstream II Departure 12 106.6 02/22/05 12:36 AM JetBlue A320 Arrival 30 92.6 ss City of Long Beach Memorandum izEr. Working Together to Serve .M . . . 4 9 9 Date: February 17, 2005 To: Airport Advisory Commission From: Ken Ashmore, Operations Specialist, Airport Bureau Subject: NOISE STATISTICS FOR JANUARY 2005 Noise Complaints Type of Operator January 2005 December 2004 January 2004 Air Carriers 170 123 177 General Aviation Jets 35 35 35 General Aviation Props 10 9 15 Industrial 0 2 0 Unknown Source 0 0 0 Subtotal 215 169 227 Other Operations January 2005 December 2004 January 2004 General Aviation Helicopters 5 0 4 Military/ Public/Air Ambulance 6 5 4 Helicopters Military/Public/Air Ambulance 9 39 1 Jets, Props Subtotal 20 44 9 Grand Total 235 213 236 • Number of complainants: 64 • 24 of the 235 complaints related to operations that were in violation of the City's noise compatibility ordinance. Aircraft operations receiving five or more complaints Date Time Operator Type Arrival /Departure Runway dB SENEL Complaints 01/09/05 10:11 PM JetBlue A320 Departure 30 95.5 10 01/24/05 10:41 PM JetBlue A320 Departure 30 91.7 8 01/01/05 10:59 PM JetBlue A320 Departure 30 87.7 6 01/05/05 10:48 PM JetBlue A320 Departure 30 93.6 6 01/08/05 08:46 PM JetBlue A320 Arrival 12 93.4 6 01/09/05 10:08 PM JetBlue A320 Departure 30 94.4 6 01/03/05 11:53 PM JetBlue A320 Departure 30 93.9 5 01/05/05 10:59 PM JetBlue A320 Departure 30 91.1 5 01/08/05 08:49 PM JetBlue A320 Arrival 12 93.8 5 01/21/05 10:14 PM JetBlue A320 Departure 30 90.3 5 Noise Violations Violation Number January 2005 December,2004 January 2004 1S 7 4 12 2nd 2 2 1 3rd 0 0 0 4 9 2 11 Total 18* 8 24 • *Equates to 0.07% of the Airport's 24,531 aircraft operations during the month. • 0.40% of air carrier operations (9 of 2,293) resulted in noise violations. Violations in the " + " category Arrival/ dB Date Time Operator Type Departure Runway SENEL 01/01/05 11:09 PM JetBlue A320 Departure 30 95.5 01/03/05 11:53 PM JetBlue A320 Departure 30 93.9 01/03/05 07:11 AM American MD80 Departure 30 105.2 01/04/05 11:11 PM JetBlue A320 Arrival 25R 93.4 01/05/05 05:35 PM American MD80 Departure 25R 104.8 01/06/05 11:31 PM JetBlue A320 Arrival 25R 91.7 01/13/05 11:27 PM JetBlue A320 Arrival 25R 93.7 01/15/05 11:43 PM JetBlue A320 Departure 30 90.0 01/24/05 12:44 AM JetBlue A320 Arrival 25R 94.0