My First Impressions on the SRHS 15 Initial Study

I saved, printed, and read through the Notice of Preparation and Initial Study for the proposed South Region High School #15 (SRHS 15).

Here are some of my findings, impressions and opinions.

The document's "Project Description" and "Project Components" for the Proposed Facilities include 45 classrooms and other facilities contained in two-to three-story buildings approximately 52 feet high.

"45 classrooms" is what the three-academy would be and not the "proposed" two-academy campus both Dr. Vladovic and Mr. Rod Hamilton have been telling us would initially be built.

Further down on Page 7 of the document in the Student Capacity and Schedule section, is the following; "The proposed Project would provide 1,215 two-semester seats for ninth through twelfth grades and would operate with approximately 100 full- and part-time faculty and staff."

Now if anyone can read "810-seats" in that prior paragraph, please allow me to catch and eat a bug!

Also mentioned in the "Project Description" sections are statements about "Nighttime field lighting would be provided." There may also be Adult School activities and Summer School at the proposed campus.

Going back in the study to Page 5 and the Project Objectives, is one of six objectives, and here it is; "Relieve classroom overcrowding and restore pre-2002 classroom size norms at existing schools within the South Region Planning Area, specifically at San Pedro High School.

What strikes me about this objective is that we have already been told that student to teacher ratios will not go down, but they will stay the same or increase!

In essence, the 45 new classrooms at the proposed new campus will simply move 45 rooms full of students from one place to another and allow both campuses to increase in student size. How does this equate to one of the six objectives for building the new campus in the first place?

The Initial Study and Notice of Preparation allows for 30-days of comment period for the documents. What if fails to do is state, in writing, when that 30-day period begins or began.

The title page of the documents stated a publishing date of "March, 2008". The "Environmental Determination" which is the document that instructs that an "Environmental Impact Report is required", was signed on March 4, 2008.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Scoping meeting is scheduled for March 13, 2008. How many days do all of us have to write and send in comments?

I found the documents completely lacking on any environmental impact issue regarding placing a senior high school directly next door to an operating "Beyond the Bell" Point Fermin Outdoor Experience Center?

That facility, if its redevelopment is completed, with allow for approximately 14,000 more students from approximately 129 MORE schools to use the facility, rather than its current usage.

To omit studying the affects of placing a active senior high school next to the Point Fermin Outdoor Experience Center demonstrates to me, a lack of consideration and due diligence on the part of the authors of the Initial Study.

Section 4P of the Initial Study, which is the Transportation/Traffic section is certainly the most under-anticipated section, in my opinion.

Section 4P, subsection b. asks; "Would the project exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

The author suggest that that section will have "No Impact" and maybe for a very good reason.

Alma Street may not fall into the category of roads or highways designated for levels of service standards.

Gaffey Street would certainly fall into the category, but it appears the authors forgot about that road in their Initial Study.

Section 4P, subsection a. asks; "Would the project cause an increase in traffic that 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)?

I feel the "Potentially Significant Impact" given initially on this issue is too low. I feel it should have been rated; "A significant unavoidable impact that would cause a substantial adverse effect on the environment and no feasible mitigation measures would be available to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level."

Here are the routes I have heard about, to get to and from the school.

The first I am listing is the dumbest, in my humble opinion. I heard that some official in LAUSD thinks using the access to Joan Milke Flores Park, on Paseo del Mar, may be the route.

Of course second, and a non-starter is Alma Street. Anyone with any knowledge of San Pedro knows we can't have ANOTHER campus using Alma Street.

The third choices are to use routes from Gaffey Street, via roads owned and maintained by the Department of Parks and Recreation.

The road most often mentioned of this group is Barlow Saxton Road which intersects with Gaffey Street with 32Nd. Street on the east side. This road is too steep, narrow and hazardous for buses, would require a traffic signal very close to the much-more-used intersection of Gaffey at 30Th Street, and ends up intersection with the existing Point Fermin Outdoor Experience Center.

Opening gates at Meyler or Cabrillo where they intersect with 36Th Street should not be used as an option because it would have vehicle traffic traveling on campus grounds to the parking lot(s) slated to be on the north side of the campus(es).

Our taxes cannot take the liability of having vehicles hit pedestrians while on campus(es).

I needed to use "lot(s)" and "campus(es) to denote not one facility, but two that need proper points of entrances and exists. Please remember that right next door to the proposed new campus is the Outdoor Experience Center that needs its own parking lots and would be near the access at Cabrillo and 36Th Street.

And another little issue about the southern gates being used for vehicles is that there would almost certainly be a requirement to place at least one signalized intersection on Paseo del Mar.

The last alternative to placing an entrance to the high school is probably the most controversial and has actually been thought of by folks within LAUSD.

If you place a signal at 30Th Street and Gaffey, then traffic can move along 30Th Street.

30Th Street has curves, but it is wider than Alma and allows for better pedestrian traffic than Alma does.

But here is the kicker.

To utilize 30Th Street as the primary route to both the proposed new campus and the existing Outdoor Experience Center, at least one existing home may have to be bought by LAUSD, using the right of eminent domain to condemn the property and use that area for an access road to both facilities.

Nobody likes this idea at all. Unfortunately, it is probably the safest for pedestrians who will have to park or walk along 30Th Street. It also would relieve increased congestion on Alma in the "Esses" which is the really curvy part I liked to speed down on my bike and in my V.W. when I was young.

Another issue that should be studied, is placing a pedestrian-only access gate on the 36th Street side. It will place more student and recreation parking on the southern side of the campus. I don't really like this idea much, either.

Eighteen areas of study are listed in the Initial Study. Of those, ten have portions of them that are listed as having "Potentially Significant Impacts" on the environment.

I encourage all interested individual and groups to download the Notice of Preparation and Initial Study for South Region High School No. 15, by clicking on the title of this post, or:

http://www.laschools.org/project-status/attach/56.40092/SRHS15IS-NOPFINAL.pdf