CARDIFF SCHOOL MODERNIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION … project will address the most critical physical...

May 2018 | Notice of Preparation and Initial Study

CARDIFF SCHOOL MODERNIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT

Cardiff School District

Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for Proposed

Cardiff School Modernization and Reconstruction Project Date: May 8, 2018 To: State Clearinghouse, County Clerk, Responsible Agencies, Organizations, and

Interested Parties

From: Cardiff School District, 1888 Montgomery Avenue, Cardiff-by-the-Sea, CA 92007 Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Cardiff

School Modernization and Reconstruction Project Cardiff School District (District) will initiate preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Cardiff School Modernization and Reconstruction Project (project). The District is the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State CEQA Guidelines (Public Resources Code, §§ 21000 et seq.; California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3 §§ 15000–15387) and will prepare an EIR for the proposed project. This Notice of Preparation (NOP), which is supported by an Initial Study, provides information describing the proposed project and its potential environmental effects in order to solicit public and agency comments as to the scope of environmental issues, reasonable alternatives, and mitigation to be explored in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR will describe the project need, goals, and objectives; baseline environmental conditions in the project study area; and the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects associated with implementation of the proposed project. Mitigation measures and alternatives to the proposed project and the potential effects of those alternatives will also be discussed in the Draft EIR. Project Location

The project site is at Cardiff Elementary School, 1888 Montgomery Avenue, in the beach community of Cardiff-by-the-Sea, City of Encinitas, California. The site is 7.4 acres and roughly triangular in shape. It is surrounded by Montgomery Avenue on the north, Mozart Avenue on the south, and San Elijo Avenue on the west.

Project Description

The proposed project entails demolition of five 1-story buildings, a portion of another building, and eight relocatable classrooms; construction of ten 1-story wood-framed buildings and a two-classroom addition to an existing building; and modernization of two existing buildings. The project would increase the school’s building area by 4,760 net square feet, including one new classroom and one specialty lab. The project would also enhance onsite passenger loading and parking. Construction would commence summer 2019 and be completed in 18 months. Probable Environmental Effects to Be Evaluated in the Draft EIR

Potential environmental effects anticipated to be evaluated in the Draft EIR are: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology/water quality, land use/planning, noise, transportation/traffic, and tribal cultural resources. The project site is not on a list of sites enumerated under Government Code § 65962.5. Response to the Notice of Preparation Please provide your written comments, including the specific statutory responsibilities of your agency, as applicable. Written comments on the NOP and on the contents of the forthcoming Draft EIR should be submitted by June 6, 2018, and addressed to:

Randy Peterson, FAIA Bond Program Manager Cardiff School District

1888 Montgomery Avenue Cardiff-by-the-Sea, CA 92007 E-mail: [email protected]

Document Availability

Copies of the NOP and Initial Study are available for review at: • Cardiff School District Office: 1888 Montgomery Avenue, Encinitas • Cardiff-by-the-Sea Library: 2081 Newcastle Avenue, Encinitas • District website: https://www.cardiffschools.com/cardiffschools

May 2018 | Initial Study

CARDIFF SCHOOL MODERNIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT


Prepared for:

Cardiff School District Contact: Randy Peterson, Bond Program Manager

1888 Montgomery Avenue Cardiff, CA 92007

760.632.5890

Prepared by:

PlaceWorks Contact: Barbara Heyman, Associate Principal

750 B Street, Suite 1620 San Diego, California 92101

619.299.2700 [email protected] www.placeworks.com

C A R D I F F S C H O O L M O D E R N I Z A T I O N A N D R E C O N S T R U C T I O N P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y C A R D I F F S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

Table of Contents

May 2018 Page i

Section Page

1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS ....................................................................................................................... 1

IMPACT TERMINOLOGY ................................................................................................................................ 2

ORGANIZATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY ............................................................................................ 3

2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ......................................................................................................... 5

PROJECT LOCATION ....................................................................................................................................... 5

EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................................ 5

ZONING, GENERAL PLAN, AND LOCAL COASTAL PLAN ............................................................. 7

3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................. 19

PROPOSED PROJECT ..................................................................................................................................... 19

4. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST .................................................................................................. 31 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................................. 31

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ........................................................... 33

DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY) ......................................... 33

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ................................................................................ 34

5. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................... 37 AESTHETICS ...................................................................................................................................................... 37

AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ................................................................................... 38

AIR QUALITY ..................................................................................................................................................... 40

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................................................... 43

CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................... 45

GEOLOGY AND SOILS .................................................................................................................................. 46

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ............................................................................................................... 49

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ......................................................................................... 50

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ................................................................................................... 53

LAND USE AND PLANNING ...................................................................................................................... 56

MINERAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................................................. 57

NOISE .................................................................................................................................................................... 58

POPULATION AND HOUSING .................................................................................................................. 60

PUBLIC SERVICES ............................................................................................................................................ 61

RECREATION .................................................................................................................................................... 63

TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC .................................................................................................................... 64

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES .............................................................................................................. 66

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................ 67

MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE .................................................................................... 71

6. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... 73

7. LIST OF PREPARERS .................................................................................................................. 77


Table of Contents

Page ii PlaceWorks

List of Figures

Figure Page

Figure 1 Regional Location ................................................................................................................................. 9

Figure 2 Local Vicinity ....................................................................................................................................... 11

Figure 3 Aerial Photograph ............................................................................................................................... 13

Figure 4a Site Photographs ................................................................................................................................. 15

Figure 4b Site Photographs ................................................................................................................................. 17

Figure 5 Demolition Plan .................................................................................................................................. 25

Figure 6 Site Plan ................................................................................................................................................ 27

Figure 7 Construction Phasing ......................................................................................................................... 29

List of Tables

Table Page

Table 1 Cardiff School 10-Year Enrollment History .................................................................................... 6

Table 2 Proposed Uses and Building Spaces ................................................................................................ 19

Table 3 Classrooms and Program Labs ......................................................................................................... 22


Abbreviations

May 2018 Page iii

AAQS ambient air quality standards

AB Assembly Bill

afy acre-feet per year

APN Assessor’s Parcel Number

BMP best management practice

CalRecycle California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery

CARB California Air Resources Board

CBC California Building Code

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act

EIR environmental impact report

GHG greenhouse gas

gpd gallons per day

mgd million gallons per day

MHCP multiple habitat conservation program

MRZ mineral resource zone

NCTD North County Transit District

O3 ozone

PM particulate matter

RAQS regional air quality strategy

SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments

SB Senate Bill

SDAB San Diego Air Basin

SDAPCD San Diego Air Pollution Control District

SDWD San Dieguito Water District

tpd tons per day

UWMP urban water management plan

WRF water reclamation facility


Abbreviations

Page iv PlaceWorks

This page intentionally left blank.

May 2018 Page 1

1. Introduction

Cardiff School District (District) proposes to modernize and reconstruct Cardiff Elementary School, 1888

Montgomery Avenue in the community of Cardiff-by-the-Sea, City of Encinitas, San Diego County. The

modernization project will address the most critical physical needs of buildings and grounds at the campus

through building replacement, renovation, modernization, and reconfiguration. The proposed project is

required to undergo an environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

As the lead agency with the principal responsibility for carrying out and approving the project, the District is

required to consider the project’s potential environmental consequences and determine if its benefits

outweigh any significant effects. This document is an “initial study” of the effects.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS

A “project,” which is an activity that may cause a direct or indirect physical change in the environment, is

required to undergo environmental review, which is governed by two principal regulations: CEQA (Public

Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations

Sections 15000 et seq.).

CEQA was enacted in 1970 by the California Legislature to disclose to decision makers and the public the

significant environmental effects of discretionary activities and to identify ways to avoid or reduce their

environmental effects by requiring implementation of feasible mitigation measures and/or alternatives.

Compliance with CEQA applies to all California government agencies at all levels, including local, regional,

and state agencies, boards, commissions, and special districts, such as school districts.

1.1.1 Initial Study

This initial study has been prepared to determine if the proposed project could have a significant impact on

the environment. The purposes of this initial study, as described in the State CEQA Guidelines Section

15063(c), are to

1) provide the lead agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare

an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Mitigated Negative Declaration or Negative

Declaration (ND);

2) enable the lead agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is

prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a negative declaration;

3) assist the preparation of an EIR, if one is required by: (A) focusing the EIR on the effects

determined to be significant, (B) identifying the effects determined not to be significant, (C)

explaining the reasons for determining that potentially significant effects would not be


1. Introduction

Page 2 PlaceWorks

significant, and (D) identifying whether a program EIR, tiering or another appropriate

process can be used for analysis of the project’s environmental effects;

4) facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project;

5) provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a ND that a project will not

have a significant effect on the environment;

6) eliminate unnecessary EIRs; and

7) determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project.

The findings in this initial study have determined that a focused, Project EIR is the appropriate level of

environmental documentation for the proposed project.

1.1.2 Environmental Impact Report

The EIR will include information necessary for agencies to meet statutory responsibilities related to the

proposed project. State and local agencies will use the EIR when considering any permit or other approvals

necessary to implement the project. The environmental topics that have been identified for study in the EIR

are provided in an environmental checklist; see Section 4.2, Environmental Factors Potentially Affected.

Following consideration of any public comments on the initial study, a Draft EIR will be completed and then

circulated to the public and affected agencies for review and comment. One of the primary objectives of

CEQA is to enhance public participation in the planning process, and public involvement is an essential

feature of CEQA. Community members are encouraged to participate in the environmental review process,

request to be notified, monitor newspapers for formal announcements, and submit substantive comments at

every possible opportunity afforded by the District. The environmental review process provides several

opportunities for the public to participate through public notice and public review of CEQA documents and

public meetings. Additionally, lead agencies are required to respond to public comments in the Final EIR and

consider comments from the scoping process in the preparation of the Draft EIR.

IMPACT TERMINOLOGY

The following terminology is used to describe the level of significance of impacts.

▪ A finding of no impact is appropriate if the analysis concludes that the project would not affect the

particular topic area in any way.

▪ An impact is considered less than significant if the analysis concludes that the project would cause no

substantial adverse change to the environment.

▪ An impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated if the analysis concludes

that the project may have a substantial adverse effect on the environment; however, with the inclusion of

environmental commitments or other enforceable mitigation measures, those adverse effects would be


1. Introduction

May 2018 Page 3

reduced or avoided and the project would ultimately result in no substantial adverse change to the

environment.

▪ An impact is considered potentially significant if the analysis concludes that the project could have a

substantial adverse effect on the environment. If any impact is identified as potentially significant,

additional analysis and preparation of an EIR is required. The EIR need only include those potentially

significant impacts identified in the Initial Study.

ORGANIZATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY

The content and format of this report are designed to meet the requirements of CEQA. This Initial Study

contains the following sections:

▪ Section 1, Introduction, identifies the purpose and scope of the initial study and the terminology used.

▪ Section 2, Environmental Setting, describes the existing conditions, surrounding land uses, general

plan designation, and existing zoning at the project site and surrounding area.

▪ Section 3, Project Description, identifies the location and background and describes the proposed

improvements.

▪ Section 4, Environmental Checklist, presents the CEQA checklist and the significance finding for each

resource topic.

▪ Section 5, Environmental Analysis, provides an evaluation of the impact categories in the

environmental checklist and identifies mitigation measures, if applicable.

▪ Section 6, References, identifies all references and individuals cited in this initial study.

▪ Section 7, List of Preparers, identifies the individuals who prepared the initial study and technical

studies and their areas of specialty.


1. Introduction

Page 4 PlaceWorks


May 2018 Page 5

2. Environmental Setting

PROJECT LOCATION

The project site encompasses the Cardiff School property at 1888 Montgomery Avenue in the beach

community of Cardiff-by-the-Sea, City of Encinitas. The property is roughly triangular and surrounded by

Montgomery Avenue on the north, Mozart Avenue on the south, and San Elijo Avenue on the west. The City

of Encinitas is surrounded by the City of Carlsbad to the north, the City of Solana Beach to the south, and

unincorporated areas of San Diego County to the east. Figure 1, Regional Location, and Figure 2, Local Vicinity,

show the project site from its regional and local contexts.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

The project site is approximately 7.4 acres and consists of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 260-3400-100

and 260-3400-200. The site gently slopes down from east to west toward the ocean; site elevations range from

102 feet above mean sea level near the intersection of Montgomery Avenue and Mozart Avenue to 81 and 78

feet in the southwest and northwest corners, respectively.

Facilities

The Cardiff School campus includes school buildings on the eastern portion of the site and open space and

field areas on the western portion. The campus’s 40,465 net square feet of building area includes 19

instructional classrooms, programmatic laboratories (art, learning, and computer), a library/media center,

District administration offices, a multipurpose building, and a kitchen with outdoor lunch court. The

administration building, library/media center, and academic labs/rooms were constructed in 2001; portable

classrooms were installed between 1985 and 1995; the multipurpose building was constructed in 1960; and

the remaining permanent classroom buildings were built between 1950 and 1960.

Outdoor recreational uses include baseball and soccer fields at the northwest and southwest portions of the

campus, respectively; three areas with playground structures and swings, one between the two fields and two

at the eastern portion of the site for the school’s kindergarten program; and a blacktop play area east of the

soccer field. The westernmost portion of the site is recognized as outdoor recreational space by the Land and

Water Conservation Fund Act.

The property contains a brick building near the corner of San Elijo Avenue and Montgomery Avenue that

was built in the mid-1940s and is used by the District for storage. The school also operates a vegetable garden

east of the brick building and a pollinator garden near the corner of Mozart Avenue and San Elijo Avenue.

An informal dog park—operated by community members—is on Montgomery Avenue next to the vegetable

garden. Figure 3, Aerial Photograph, shows the site facilities from an aerial view. Figures 4a and 4b, Site

Photographs, show photos of the project site.



Page 6 PlaceWorks

Access and Parking

The main entrance to the campus is through the school’s parking lot on Montgomery Avenue. Vehicular

access is via two 1-way driveways. The parking lot contains 29 stalls and an approximately 80-foot passenger

loading area adjacent to the administration building that can safely accommodate two vehicles at a time. Two

other drop-off areas are on Mozart Avenue.

Operations

Cardiff School is one of two schools operated by the District. Cardiff School offers kindergarten and

grades 1 through 3. The District also operates Ada Harris School at 1508 Windsor Road, approximately one

mile east of the project site. Ada Harris School offers programs for grades 3 through 6.

Cardiff School follows the District’s attendance calendar. During the fall, the kindergarten bell schedule starts

at 8:15 AM and ends at 12:15 PM. Beginning January, the kindergarten program is extended to full-day and

class ends at 2:35 PM. Grades first through third start school at 8:15 AM and end 2:35 PM every day, except

Wednesday, which follows a minimum day schedule that ends at 12:15 PM.

Based on a classroom count of 19 and the District’s classroom loading ratio of 22 students per classroom,

Cardiff School has a maximum seating capacity of 418 students. In April 2018, Cardiff School enrolled 347

students in kindergarten through 3rd grade. Its highest enrollment of 440 students occurred during the 2001-

02 school year, and over the last ten school years, the school had an average enrollment of 367 students.

Table 1, Cardiff School 10-Year Enrollment History, shows the 10-year enrollment history for Cardiff School.

Table 1 Cardiff School 10-Year Enrollment History

School Year Enrollment

2017–18 347

2016–17 337

2015–16 376

2014–15 361

2013–14 366

2012–13 395

2011–12 384

2010–11 377

2009–10 364

2008–09 366

10-Year Average Enrollment: 367

Source: CDE, Enrollment Report.

The District also operates an extended daycare program on the campus to accommodate families that require

care of students before and after the school bells. These are the same students enrolled at Cardiff School.



May 2018 Page 7

The District owns the entire project site and allows community use of the dog park during the school day.

When the facilities are not in use by the District, community use is allowed through a joint use agreement

with the City of Encinitas and via the Civic Center Act.1 Organized uses at the site include Cardiff Soccer

and other sports practices, numerous afterschool enrichment classes and programs, summer camps, and

evening community meetings.

2.2.1 Surrounding Land Uses

The project site is in a residential community interspersed with low-density, single- and multifamily residences

and is roughly 500 feet east of the Pacific Ocean. The site is surrounded by the land uses described below.

▪ North: Montgomery Avenue is north of the campus and lined with single-family residences.

▪ East: Single-family residences are along the intersection of Montgomery Avenue and Mozart Avenue.

▪ South: Mozart Avenue intersects San Elijo Avenue at the southern tip of the triangular campus. Single-

and multifamily residences are located along Mozart Avenue.

▪ West: San Elijo Avenue borders the campus to the west. San Elijo Avenue parallels the North County

Transit District Rail easement, U.S. Highway 101 (South Coast Highway), and the beach. The Coastal Rail

Trail, parallel and east of the train tracks, is currently under construction.

ZONING, GENERAL PLAN, AND LOCAL COASTAL PLAN

The City of Encinitas General Plan Land Use Designation for the project site is Public/Semi-Public

(Encinitas 2013a). The site is zoned P/SP (Public/Semi-Public). The P/SP land use is for activities operated

by governmental agencies, including school districts (Encinitas 2017a). The site is also in a Coastal Bluff

Overlay Zone (Encinitas 2017b).

Surrounding land use designations include: Residential R8 (5.01–8.00 density units [du]/acre [ac]) and

Residential R11 (8.01–11.00 du/ac) to the north; transportation corridor (TC) to the west; Residential R8 to

the south; and Residential R8 and R11 to the east.

1 Sections 38130 et seq. of the California Education Code, known as the Civic Center Act, state that every public school in the state

must make available a “civic center” for community use. Specific uses and users of the civic center are in the Education Code.



Page 8 PlaceWorks


PlaceWorks

Figure 1 - Regional Location

Source: ESRI, 2017

0

Scale (Miles)

3

CARDIFF SCHOOL MODERNIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT INITIAL STUDY

CARDIFF SCHOOL DISTRICT

Site



Page 10 PlaceWorks


PlaceWorks

Figure 2 - Local Vicinity

Source: ESRI, 2017

0

Scale (Feet)

1,200



5

EncinitasEncinitas



Page 12 PlaceWorks


PlaceWorks

Figure 3 - Aerial Photograph



Source: Google Earth, 2017

0

Scale (Feet)

350Project Site

Pacific Ocean

North County Transit

District Rail

Montgomery Avenue

Moz

art A

venu

e

San E

lijo A

venue

South

Coast H

wy 1

01

Birmingham D

rive

San E

lijo A

venue

Westm

inster Drive

Montg

om

ery A

venue

Rosin

i Driv

e

RubensteinD

rive

RubensteinAvenue

Schubert P

ath

Liverpool Driv

e

New

castle

Ave

nue

Manch

este

r Ave

nue

Stafford Avenue

Residential

Residential

Residential

Commercial



Page 14 PlaceWorks


PlaceWorks

Figure 4a - Site Photographs



View of the school entrance and parking lot from Montgomery Avenue.

View of the southern student loading area on Mozart Avenue.

View of the northern student loading area on Mozart Avenue.



Page 16 PlaceWorks


PlaceWorks

Figure 4b - Site Photographs



View of the playground from San Elijo Avenue. Existing fields are to the left and right.

View of the brick building at northwest corner of the campus. Behind the building is the school’s vegetable

garden and a dog run used by the community.

View of the playground at northeast corner of the site. This playground would be removed and a new play

area would be constructed to the left.



Page 18 PlaceWorks


May 2018 Page 19

3. Project Description

PROPOSED PROJECT

3.1.1 Building Improvements

Cardiff School would be modernized and reconstructed to facilitate a safe and secure campus and to better

align with the current instructional program needs. The proposed project consists of demolition of five 1-

story buildings, a portion of a sixth building, and eight relocatable classrooms; construction of ten 1-story

wood-framed buildings and a 2-classroom addition to an existing building; and modernization of two existing

buildings. A demolition plan showing the location of the facilities that would be demolished is included as

Figure 5, Demolition Plan, and the proposed improvements are included in Figure 6, Site Plan. A breakdown of

the proposed improvements based on facility use, including a comparison of existing and proposed square

footage of facilities, is provided in Table 2, Proposed Uses and Spaces. As shown, the proposed improvements

would increase the building area by 4,760 net square feet.

New Construction

▪ Classroom Buildings: All existing classroom buildings would be demolished. The reconstructed

classroom buildings would remain in the eastern portion of the site and in the general area of the

existing buildings. The project would include 20 classrooms in Buildings A to H (see Figure 6, Site Plan).

Five kindergarten classrooms and two extended day rooms would be in Buildings A and B in the eastern

corner of the campus.

Table 2 Proposed Uses and Building Spaces

School Uses Existing Space (NSF) Proposed Space

(NSF) Change in Space (NSF)

District Administration Office (Building E) 1,375 1,375 0

School Administration Office (Building E) 3,190 3,190 0

Library/Media Center (Building E) 3,510 3,510 0

Kindergarten Instruction Areas (Buildings A and B) 7,200 6,500 -700

Classroom Instruction Areas (Buildings C-H, K, and M) 19,250 23,045 3,795

Multipurpose Building (Building L) 3,560 5,000 1,440

Food Service Building (Building J) 1,580 1,805 225

Brick Building (Building N) 800 800 0

Total (NSF) 40,465 45,225 4,760

NSF = net square feet



Page 20 PlaceWorks

▪ Special Program Buildings: Specialty program classes would be in Buildings K and M, west of the

classroom buildings and east of the grass playfields. Building K would include maker space/art lab,

reading group room, and special education resource room. Building M would include a learning lab,

science/STEAM lab, and restrooms.

▪ Multipurpose Building: A 5,000-square-foot multipurpose building would replace the existing smaller

3,560-square-foot multipurpose facility. The new building is proposed near the northwest portion of the

site, between the grass playfield and main parking lot and loading area. In addition to replacing the

existing auditorium with a larger multipurpose room sized to accommodate school programs, the

multipurpose building would include a music classroom, stage, audio/visual storage, restrooms, and a

storage room.

▪ Food Service Building and Lunch Court: A 1,805-square-foot food service building would replace the

existing 1,580-square-foot food service building. The new food service building and lunch court would be

constructed in the southeastern portion of the site, between the hardcourts and classroom buildings. The

food service building would include a dry storage room, queuing area, restrooms, PE equipment storage,

and maintenance and electric rooms. A lunch court would be north of the food service building.

Modernization

▪ Library/Media Center: An Information Technology (IT) Office/Workroom would be created within

the existing facility by constructing a wall within the Library.

▪ Science/Art Lab: Minor casework modifications to convert the facility from its existing joint use to a

dedicated science lab.

Other Improvements

▪ Fencing would be installed around the core campus buildings to limit public access to the classroom

portions of the school grounds; field access would remain from the street.

▪ A new outdoor assembly seating area would be constructed near the multipurpose building.

▪ The brick building would be retrofitted to comply with current seismic standards.

▪ New flooring and paint would be provided for all facilities constructed in 2001.

▪ Night-time security lighting in the parking lots and within the interior of campus would be installed.

▪ Perimeter fencing would be installed to secure the campus, with access points that would accommodate

entry from pedestrian walkways and reconfigured student loading areas.



May 2018 Page 21

3.1.2 Play Areas

Turf Fields

The existing baseball field would be removed, and two natural turf soccer fields would be installed along San

Elijo Avenue. Existing access points would remain on Montgomery Avenue and Mozart Avenue. The access

point along San Elijo Avenue would be relocated farther south, adjacent to the hardcourt area.

Hardcourt

A new hardcourt play area would be constructed near the existing hardcourt along Mozart Avenue. The

hardcourt would be repaved and repainted and include markings for a full basketball court and various

hardcourt games such as foursquare.

Play Structures

The existing play structure that bisects the two fields and restricts supervision of the fields would be

relocated to the southern portion of the site, near the intersection of San Elijo Avenue and Mozart Avenue.

The new playground would include a jungle gym and wall ball courts. Kindergarten play structures at the

eastern corner of the site—near the intersection of Montgomery and Mozart Avenue—would be replaced

with new facilities, constructed west of Buildings A and B (see Figure 6, Site Plan).

3.1.3 Parking and Circulation

The school’s parking lot/onsite passenger loading area off Montgomery Avenue would be expanded. The

existing ingress and egress driveways would be removed, and four new driveways would be constructed.

▪ The westernmost driveway would provide ingress-only to an approximately 250-foot, passenger loading

area in the front of the school; the one-way, student-loading loop would allow vehicles to access a new

parking lot or exit the loop via the easternmost driveway. The driveway would allow for the safe curbside

pick-up and drop-off of students and accommodate required fire department truck access.

▪ A separate ingress-only driveway—directly across from Westminster Drive—would provide direct

vehicular access into the one-way parking lot. Exit out of the parking lot would be via the fourth

driveway, immediately east of the driveway with access into the passenger loading area. The onsite

parking lot would include 40 parking stalls, an increase of 11 stalls from the existing conditions.

▪ The sidewalk on Montgomery Avenue, adjacent to the site, would follow the passenger loading zone. A

raised-ADA walkway would bifurcate the parking lot and passenger loading area in order to provide ADA

access from the lot and Montgomery Avenue to the school’s main entrance.

The two passenger loading areas along Mozart Avenue would remain as they are and would remain available

for street parking when not used by the school.



Page 22 PlaceWorks

3.1.4 School Operation

The project would increase the number of classrooms from 19 to 20. Using the District’s loading factor of 22

students per classroom, the enrollment capacity would increase accordingly by 22 seats, from 418 to 440 seats.

Table 3, Classrooms and Program Labs, shows the existing and proposed number of classrooms and resource

labs. Cardiff School’s operational dates and hours would remain the same.

3.1.5 Project Construction

Project construction would be phased over an approximately 18-month period, commencing after the District

receives required permits and approvals in the summer 2019 and ending in December 2020. Figure 7,

Construction Phasing, illustrates the proposed schedule.

▪ Phase 1A, June 2019 to August 2019. Demolish existing parking lot and buildings in the eastern portion

of the campus; construct new parking lot and loading area along Montgomery Avenue.

▪ Phase 1B, June 2019 to August 2020. Construct new classroom, multipurpose, and food service

buildings and eastern playground improvements; retrofit brick building; improve some or all playfields,

play structures, and hardcourt areas at the southwest corner of the site.

▪ Phase 2, June 2020 to December 2020. Demolish remaining buildings near the center of the campus;

construct new replacement buildings; modernize existing buildings; improve remaining fields and play

areas.

Kindergarten and first grade would remain at Cardiff School during construction activities. Second and third

grades would be relocated to Ada Harris School. Second grade would return to Cardiff School in August

2020. Third grade would return to Cardiff School in August 2021. No interim portable classrooms would be

installed during construction activities.

Table 3 Classrooms and Program Labs Room Type Existing Proposed

Classrooms Kindergarten 6 5

Grades 1 to 3 13 15

Total 19 20

Special Program Labs and Other Instructional Areas

Learning Lab 1 1

Science Lab 1 1

STEAM Lab/Maker Space -- 1

RAD Room (Reading Groups) 1 1

Special Ed Resource Room 1 1

Extended Day 1 2 2

Total 6 7

Total Classrooms and Special Program Rooms 25 27 1 The two Extended Day rooms are not counted as school classrooms because they are only used for before- and after-school activities.



May 2018 Page 23

Construction laydown/material staging would occur near the construction areas. Staging would occur at the

baseball field for construction of the parking lot, multipurpose building, and brick building; access would be

mainly via San Elijo Avenue, although Montgomery Avenue would be accessed during improvements to the

new parking lot and multipurpose building. Staging for the remaining new building construction would be on

the school’s blacktop area with access from Mozart Avenue near San Elijo Avenue. Construction activities

would include building and asphalt demolition and excavation, site preparation and rough grading, utility

trenching, fine grading, building construction, architectural coating, asphalt paving, finishing, and landscaping.

A construction worksite traffic control plan would be prepared and implemented by the District. The plan

would identify haul routes, hours of construction, protective devices, warning signs, and access. The active

construction and staging areas would be on the campus and clearly marked with barriers to separate public

access from the construction zone.



Page 24 PlaceWorks


PlaceWorksSource: Studio E Architects, March 8, 2018.

Figure 5 - Demolition Plan

C A R D I F F S C H O O L M O D E R N I Z AT I O N A N D R E C O N S T R U C T I O N P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C A R D I F F S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

0

Scale (Feet)

150Buildings to Be Demolished



Page 26 PlaceWorks


PlaceWorksSource: Spurlock Landscape Architects; Studio E Architects, May 1, 2018.

Figure 6 - Site Plan

C A R D I F F S C H O O L M O D E R N I Z AT I O N A N D R E C O N S T R U C T I O N P R O J E C T I N I T I A L S T U D Y

C A R D I F F S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

0

Scale (Feet)

90

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Entry

Pick-Up / Drop-off

Parking

Learning Courtyards

Library Courtyard

Makerspace Courtyard

Lunch Courtyard

Kindergarten Playspace

9 Hardcourt Playspace

10

11

15

16

17

Play Equipment /

Sport Court

Pollinator Garden

MPR Terrace

Sports Fields

Garden

Dog Run

Picnic Grove

Play Apparatus

12

13

14

Kindergarten

Kindergarten

Classrooms

Classrooms

Administration / District

Office / Classrooms

Classrooms

Classrooms

Classrooms

Food Service

Maker Space /

Specialty Classrooms

Multipurpose / Music

Labs

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

J

K

L

M

Brick BuildingN



Page 28 PlaceWorks


PlaceWorks

Figure 7 - Construction Phasing



Source: Studio E Architects, 2018

0

Scale (Feet)

225

Moz

art A

venu

e

San E

lijo A

venue

Montgomery Avenue

Moz

art A

venu

e

San E

lijo A

venue

Montgomery Avenue

Phase I

Phase II

Phase 1A - New Parking Lot

June 2019 - August 2019

Phase 1B - New Classrooms

June 2019 - August 2020

Phase 2 - New Classrooms/Hardcourts

June 2020 - December 2020



Page 30 PlaceWorks


May 2018 Page 31

4. Environmental Checklist

BACKGROUND

1. Project Title: Cardiff School Modernization and Reconstruction Project

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Cardiff School District 1888 Montgomery Avenue Cardiff-by-the-Sea, CA 92007

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Randy Peterson, Bond Program Manager 760.632.5890

4. Project Location: The project site is on the campus of Cardiff School, at 1888 Montgomery Avenue, in the community of Cardiff-by-the-Sea, in the City of Encinitas, California. (APNs 260-3400-100 and 260-3400-200).

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Cardiff School District 1888 Montgomery Avenue Cardiff-by-the-Sea, CA 92007

6. General Plan Designation: Public/Semi-Public

7. Zoning: P/SP- Public/Semi-Public

8. Description of Project: Cardiff School District proposes reconstruction and modernization of Cardiff School to facilitate a safe and secure campus that better aligns with the current instructional program. The proposed project consists of the demolition of five 1-story buildings, a portion of a sixth building, and eight relocatable classrooms; construction of ten 1-story wood-framed buildings and a 2-classroom addition to an existing building; and the modernization of two existing buildings on the Cardiff School campus. The project will also consist of improving the existing parking and drop-off areas on the Cardiff School campus.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Cardiff School is surrounded by residential uses to the north, east, and south. The North County Transit District Rail easement and Coastal Rail Trail are west.

10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required: City of Encinitas, Coastal Development Permit



Page 32 PlaceWorks

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun?

(Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code section 21083.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.94 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.)

No tribes have requested formal notice of proposed projects from the Cardiff School District.



Page 34 PlaceWorks

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors, as well as general standards (e.g. the project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.

5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:

a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.

b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.

c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.



May 2018 Page 35

8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

9) The explanation of each issue should identify:

a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and

b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.



Page 36 PlaceWorks


May 2018 Page 37

5. Environmental Analysis

AESTHETICS

Would the project:

Issues

Potentially Significant

Impact

Less Than Significant

With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not

limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

X

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? X

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? X

Comments:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

Potentially Significant Impact. Vistas provide visual access or panoramic views to a large geographic area.

The City of Encinitas Design Guidelines state: “Projects should be designed to preserve significant public

views. A significant public view is a view of a significant feature (ocean, lagoon or backcountry) as viewed

from public parks and General Plan designated vista points and scenic view corridors” (Encinitas 2005a). The

project site is approximately 500 feet from the Pacific Ocean, which is considered a scenic feature. Due to the

proximity of the proposed improvements to the Pacific Ocean, the EIR will analyze the project’s potential

impacts on public views of the scenic feature.

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

No Impact. The closest designated state scenic highway is State Route 75, Silver Strand Highway, and San

Diego-Coronado Bridge, over 26 miles south of the project site (Caltrans 2011). The closest eligible state

scenic highway is Interstate 5, which is approximately 0.40 mile east of the project site (Caltrans 2011). Due

to the distance and intervening structures, project development would not result in impacts to scenic

resources within a designated state scenic highway. Therefore, no impact would occur, and this topic will not

be further analyzed in the EIR.



Page 38 PlaceWorks

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project would change the visual appearance of the project

site. The site configuration would change, and existing facilities would be reconstructed. The EIR will

evaluate the proposed visual changes and their potential to impact the character and quality of the site and

surrounding area.

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

Less Than Significant Impact. The two major causes of light pollution are glare and spill light. Spill light is

caused by misdirected light that illuminates areas outside the intended area to be lit. Glare occurs when a

bright object is against a dark background, such as oncoming vehicle headlights or an unshielded light bulb.

The project site currently generates light from its buildings (interior and exterior) and parking lot. Vehicle

headlights, street lights, and exterior and interior building lights also exist in the surrounding area.

The proposed buildings would have exterior stucco/sand finishes, similar to existing buildings, that are not

reflective. Lighting in the proposed buildings and parking lot would also be similar to existing. The proposed

project does not include field lighting. Outdoor building security and path lighting installed during

construction and for permanent use would be directed onto the intended area to be lit and would not spill off

the campus. Light and glare levels caused by the proposed project would not be substantially greater than

existing levels. Therefore, light and glare impacts would be less than significant, and this issue will not be

further considered in the EIR.

AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES

In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies

may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the

California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and

farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant

environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of

Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range

Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology

provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

Would the project:

Issues


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

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?

X



May 2018 Page 39

Issues


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? X

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?

X

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? X

e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

X

Comments:

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?

No Impact. The project site has no agricultural or farm use on it, nor is there agricultural or farm use in its

immediate proximity. No project-related farmland conversion impact would occur. The vegetable and

pollinator gardens would remain as they are. The project site is fully developed and is not mapped as

important farmland by the Division of Land Resource Protection (DLRP 2014). No impact would occur;

therefore, the topic will not be addressed further in the EIR.

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

No Impact. The zoning designation for the project site is P/SP (Public/Semi-Public). The proposed project

would not conflict with agricultural zoning or a Williamson Act contract as it is not zoned for agricultural use.

Williamson Act contracts restrict the use of privately owned land to agriculture and compatible open-space

uses under contract with local governments; in exchange, the land is taxed based on actual use rather than

potential market value. There is no Williamson Act contract in effect onsite. No impact would occur;

therefore, the issue will not be addressed further in the EIR.

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?

No Impact. Project development would not conflict with existing zoning for forest land, timberland, or

timberland production. Forest land is defined as “land that can support 10-percent native tree cover of any

species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more



Page 40 PlaceWorks

forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other

public benefits” (California PRC § 12220[g]). Timberland is defined as “land…which is available for, and

capable of, growing a crop of trees of any commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest

products, including Christmas trees” (California PRC § 4526). The project site is zoned as P/PS

(Public/Semi-Public). No impact would occur; therefore, the topic will not be addressed further in the EIR.

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

No Impact. Vegetation onsite is limited to scattered ornamental trees and shrubs. Project construction

would not result in the loss or conversion of forest land. Project development would not cause a loss of

forest land. No impact would occur; therefore, the topic will not be addressed further in the EIR.

e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

No Impact. Maps from the division of Land Resource Protection indicate that there is no important

farmland or forest land on the project site or within the surrounding vicinity. Project development would not

indirectly cause conversion of such land to nonagricultural or non-forest use. No impact would occur;

therefore, the topic will not be addressed further in the EIR.

AIR QUALITY

Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution

control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Would the project:

Issues


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? X

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? X

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

X

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? X



May 2018 Page 41

Comments:

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB) and subject to the

regional air quality strategy (RAQS) prepared by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD).

SDAPCD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from area, stationary, and mobile sources in the

SDAB to achieve National and California ambient air quality standards (AAQS). A consistency determination

plays an important role in local agency project review by linking local planning and individual projects to the

San Diego RAQS, which is the air quality management plan prepared for the region. The most current RAQS

is the 2016 RAQS. SDAPCD compiles the regional emissions inventory for the RAQS using the San Diego

Association of Governments’ (SANDAG) regional population, housing, and employment projections. These

demographic projections are based in part on cities’ general plan land use designations. They are also

incorporated into the regional transportation plan/sustainable communities strategy, which is compiled by

SANDAG to determine priority transportation projects and vehicle miles traveled in the SANDAG region.

Projects that are consistent with the local general plan are considered consistent with the air quality–related

regional plan. Typically, only new or amended general plan elements, specific plans, and major projects that

have the potential to affect the regional population and employment forecasts have the potential to

substantially affect SANDAG’s demographic projections and the assumptions in SDAPCD’s RAQS.

The proposed project would modernize an existing school site and would not alter existing land uses. Per

CEQA Guideline Section 15206, the proposed project would not be considered regionally significant because

it would not have the potential to substantially affect housing, employment, or population projections within

the San Diego region, which are the basis of the RAQS projections. Therefore, impacts would be less than

significant, and this topic will not be discussed in the EIR.

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

Potentially Significant Impact. Construction and operation activities associated with the proposed project

would have the potential to generate fugitive dust, area-source emissions, and mobile-source emissions. Air

pollutant emissions would occur over the short term during site preparation and construction activities. In

addition, emissions would result from the long-term operation of the completed project. An air quality

analysis is underway for the proposed project to determine if the project’s short- or long-term emissions

would exceed SDAPCD’s regional significance thresholds for criteria air pollutants. This topic will be further

addressed in the EIR, and mitigation measures will be provided if required.

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

Potentially Significant Impact. The project site is in the SDAB, which is designated nonattainment for O3

and particulate matter (PM10 and PM 2.5) under the California and/or National AAQS. Implementation of the

proposed project may increase levels of criteria pollutants and contribute to their nonattainment status. As



Page 42 PlaceWorks

noted above, site preparation and construction activities for the proposed project would generate short-term

air pollutant emissions. Emissions from operation of the improved facilities are expected to be reduced;

however, this will be further discussed in the EIR. An air quality analysis is underway to determine if the

proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria air pollutant. This

topic will be addressed further in the EIR, and mitigation measures will be provided if required.

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

Potentially Significant Impact. An impact is potentially significant if emission levels exceed the state or

federal AAQS and expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Sensitive receptors are

populations and/or locations where uses or activities result in increased exposure of persons more sensitive

to the unhealthful effects of emissions (such as children and the elderly). The project site is surrounded by

residences to the north, east, and south that would be considered sensitive receptors. The EIR will evaluate

the potential for construction and operation activities of the proposed project to expose sensitive receptors

to substantial pollutant concentrations in accordance with SDAPCD’s guidance methodology. Mitigation

measures will be provided if required.

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

Less Than Significant Impact. Due to the nature of the proposed project, it is not anticipated to result in

objectionable odors. The threshold for odor is if a project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to SDAPCD

Rule 51, Nuisance, which states:

A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or

other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number

of persons or to the public or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such

persons or the public or which cause or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to

business or property. The provisions of this rule do not apply to odors emanating from

agricultural operations in the growing of crops or raising of fowls or animals.

The type of facilities that are considered to have objectionable odors include wastewater treatments plants,

compost facilities, landfills, solid waste transfer stations, fiberglass manufacturing facilities, paint/coating

operations (e.g., auto body shops), dairy farms, petroleum refineries, asphalt batch plants, chemical

manufacturing, and food manufacturing facilities. The uses proposed by the project do not fall within these

land uses. Emissions from construction equipment may generate odors, such as diesel exhaust and volatile

organic compounds from architectural coatings and paving activities. However, these odors would be low in

concentration, temporary, and would not affect a substantial number of people. No significant impacts would

occur, and this topic will not be discussed in the EIR.



May 2018 Page 43

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Would the project:

Issues


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?

X

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 US Fish and Wildlife Service?

X

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?

X

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

X

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

X

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?

X

Comments:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?

Potentially Significant Impact. Special status species include: those listed as endangered or threatened

under the federal Endangered Species Act or California Endangered Species Act; species otherwise given

certain designations by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife; and plant species listed as rare by the

California Native Plant Society. The project site is fully developed with buildings, asphalt, landscaping, and

concrete. Vegetation onsite is limited to ornamental trees, shrubs, and turf. There is no native habitat onsite.

The proposed project would result in the removal of mature trees. An evaluation of the trees will be

conducted, and its findings will be included in the EIR. The EIR will determine if any of the trees are

designated special status species and also discuss potential effects on migratory birds that that may nest in

these trees. Mitigation measures will be provided if required.



Page 44 PlaceWorks

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 US Fish and Wildlife Service?

No Impact. Sensitive natural communities are those considered rare in the region by regulatory agencies,

known to provide habitat for sensitive animal or plant species, or known to be important wildlife corridors.

Riparian habitats occur along the banks of rivers and streams. The entire site is developed, and there is no

sensitive natural community or riparian habitat onsite (USFWS 2018). No impact would occur; this topic will

not be further analyzed in the EIR.

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

No Impact. Wetlands are defined under the federal Clean Water Act as land that is flooded or saturated by

surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that normally does

support, a prevalence of vegetation adapted to life in saturated soils. Wetlands include areas such as swamps,

marshes, and bogs. The project site is fully developed as a school campus; there are no wetlands onsite

(USFW 2018). The nearest wetland on the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wetlands Mapper is

approximately 0.2 mile east of the site. Project development would not impact wetlands, and this topic will

not be further analyzed in the EIR.

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is on a developed school campus surrounded by urban

uses. The site contains blacktop, classrooms, and grass playfields with ornamental trees. The site is heavily

used throughout the week by the school and community and is not part of a native resident or migratory

wildlife corridor. Project implementation would not impede movement of native wildlife. Potential impacts to

migratory birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 will be analyzed in the EIR under

section 5.4(a), above. This checklist item will not be further analyzed in the EIR.

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

No Impact. The City of Encinitas Tree Ordinance and Urban Forest Management Plan protect trees on

public lands and in public rights-of-way. The project would remove trees on District-owned property, and no

impact to City trees would result. Project implementation would not violate applicable local policies or

ordinances protecting biological resources. No impact would occur; this topic will not be analyzed in the EIR.

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 site is in an area designated Developed/Disturbed Land, within the plan area of the

Northern County Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP), an ecosystem reserve system in seven



May 2018 Page 45

cities in northern San Diego County (SANDAG 2003). The site is not designated as habitat preserve.

Therefore, the proposed school modernization and reconstruction project would not conflict with the

MHCP, and no impact would occur. This topic will not be addressed further in the EIR.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Would the project:

Issues


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? X

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? X

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X

d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? X

Comments:

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5?

Potentially Significant Impact. Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines defines historic resources as

resources listed or determined to be eligible for listing by the State Historical Resources Commission, a local

register of historical resources, or the lead agency. Generally, a resource is considered “historically significant”

if it meets one of the following criteria:

i) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.

ii) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.

iii) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.

iv) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

The project site contains Cardiff Elementary School, which was built in phases between the mid-1940s and

1960. A historical resources assessment is currently underway for the proposed project. The findings of the

historical resources assessment will be included in the EIR. Mitigation measures will be provided if required.



Page 46 PlaceWorks

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?

Potentially Significant Impact. The project site is fully developed with no visible native ground surface

exposed. Project implementation would require grading and excavation, which has the potential to impact

unknown archaeological resources onsite. This topic will be addressed in the EIR, and mitigation measures

would be provided if required.

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

Potentially Significant Impact. See response to section 5.5(b), above. Potential impacts to paleontological

resources will be addressed in the EIR, and mitigation measures will be provided if required.

d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

Less Than Significant Impact. There are no known human remains in the project area, and the project site

is operating as an existing school. California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that if human

remains are discovered on a project site, disturbance of the site shall halt until the coroner has conducted an

investigation into the circumstances, manner, and cause of any death, and has made recommendations

concerning their treatment and disposition to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her

authorized representative. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority

and has reason to believe they are Native American, he or she shall contact the NAHC by telephone within

24 hours. Impacts to human remains would be less than significant, and this topic will not be discussed in the

EIR.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS

Would the project:

Issues


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

X

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X

iv) Landslides? X

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X



May 2018 Page 47

Issues


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

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 on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

X

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?

X

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?

X

Comments:

a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

No Impact. Based on a review of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, the project site is

not in an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone (CGS 2015). There is no potential for ground rupture on the project

site caused by a known earthquake fault. No impact would occur, and this topic will not be discussed

further in the EIR.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

Less Than Significant Impact. As with the rest of southern California, the project site is expected to

experience strong seismic ground shaking. According to the California Department of Conservation’s

Geologic Map of the Oceanside Quadrangle, the site is approximately 2.5 miles east of the Rose Canyon

Fault zone. Although seismic activity from this fault could potentially affect the project site, the subject

site is at no greater risk than the surrounding development and infrastructure. Additionally, all structures

built for the project would adhere to the 2016 California Building Code (CBC) (California Code of

Regulations, Title 24, Part 2), which provides minimum standards to protect property and public welfare

by regulating design and construction to mitigate the effects of seismic shaking and adverse soil

conditions. Compliance with the standards of the CBC would reduce impacts from seismic ground

shaking to a less than significant level. This topic will not be discussed further in the EIR.



Page 48 PlaceWorks

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

Potentially Significant Impact. Liquefaction refers to loose, saturated sand or gravel deposits that lose

their load supporting capability when subjected to intense shaking. The City of Encinitas does not

identify site-specific liquefaction potential for the project site. A geotechnical report is being prepared to

assess the seismic-related ground failure potential of subsurface soils. Although structures built for the

project would adhere to CBC standards, the findings of the geotechnical report will be addressed in the

EIR. Mitigation measures will be recommended if required.

iv) Landslides?

Less Than Significant Impact. Susceptibility of slopes to landslides and other slope failures depend on

several factors, which are usually present in combination—steep slopes, condition of rock and soil

materials, presence of water, formational contacts, geologic shear zones, seismic activity, etc. The project

site is in a “marginally susceptible” landslide zone, which is defined as gentle to moderate slopes that are

underlain by material that is considered unlikely to remobilize under natural conditions (CDC 1986). The

project site is relatively flat and entirely developed; it is unlikely that the site would be susceptible to

landslide hazards. Therefore, impacts related to landslides are less than significant, and this topic will not

be addressed in the EIR.

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

Less Than Significant Impact. Erosion is a normal and inevitable geologic process whereby earthen

materials are loosened, worn away, decomposed, or dissolved, and removed from one place and transported

to another. The project site is entirely covered with school facilities and landscaping, and no soils are exposed

that can be affected by erosion. Construction of the proposed improvements would temporarily leave soil

exposed and subject to erosion. The project would implement structural and nonstructural best management

practices (BMPs) before and during construction to control surface runoff and erosion and to retain

sediment on the project site. Once the proposed improvements are constructed, soil erosion would be

controlled with improvements installed on the project site. Similar to existing conditions, there would be

limited if no soil exposed. Therefore, impacts related to soil erosion during construction and operation would

be less than significant, and this issue will not be addressed in the EIR.

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 on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?

Potentially Significant Impact. Earthquakes can cause certain types of soils to lose strength and trigger

liquefaction and landslides. A geotechnical report is being prepared to address potential geology and soil

constraints, including unstable soils. The findings of the report and potential recommendations will be

included in the EIR. Mitigation measures will be provided if required.



May 2018 Page 49

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?

Potentially Significant Impact. Expansive soils swell when they become wet and shrink when they dry out,

resulting in the potential for cracked building foundations. Expansive soil conditions will be addressed in the

geotechnical report, the findings and recommendations of which will be included 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. Development of the proposed project would not require the installation of a septic tank or

alternative wastewater disposal system. The project site is already connected to the local sewer system and

would remain so. Therefore, no impact would result from septic tanks or other onsite wastewater disposal

systems. This topic will not be further considered in the EIR.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Would the project:

Issues


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

X

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

X

Comments:

a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

Potentially Significant Impact. Global climate change is not confined to a particular project area and is

generally accepted as the consequence of global industrialization over the last 200 years. A typical project,

even a very large one, does not generate enough greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on its own to influence

global climate change significantly; hence, climate change is, by definition, a cumulative environmental impact.

The State of California, through its governor and legislature, has established a comprehensive framework for

the substantial reduction of GHG emissions over the next 40-plus years. This will occur primarily through

the implementation of Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), Senate Bill 32 (SB 32), and SB 375, which address GHG

emissions on a statewide and cumulative basis. The proposed project’s construction activities, operation, and

increase in vehicle traffic have the potential to generate GHG emissions that could significantly impact the

environment. The EIR will evaluate the potential for the proposed project to generate a substantial increase

in GHG emissions. Mitigation measures will be provided if required.



Page 50 PlaceWorks

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Potentially Significant Impact. AB 32, the Global Warming Solution Act of 2006, requires the state to

reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted the

2008 Scoping Plan to identify state regulations and programs that would be adopted by state agencies to

achieve the 1990 target of AB 32. The CARB Scoping Plan is applicable to state agencies and is not directly

applicable to cities/counties and individual projects. Nonetheless, the Scoping Plan has been the primary tool

used to develop performance-based and efficiency-based CEQA criteria and GHG reduction targets for

climate action planning. On December 14, 2017, CARB adopted the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan

Update, which includes regulations and programs to achieve the 2030 target established by SB 32. Also, SB

375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, was adopted by the legislature to

reduce per capita vehicle miles traveled and associated GHG emissions from passenger vehicles. SB 375

requires the metropolitan planning organizations to prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy in their

regional transportation plans to achieve the per capita GHG reduction targets. SANDAG adopted San Diego

Forward: The Regional Plan, which is the region’s SCS, on October 8, 2015.. The EIR will evaluate

consistency of the proposed project with the overall GHG reduction goals of AB 32, SB 32, and SB 375.

Mitigation measures will be provided if required.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Would the project:

Issues


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

X

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?

X

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

X

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?

X

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 the project area?

X

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?

X



May 2018 Page 51

Issues


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

X

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?

X

Comments:

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. Project construction would require small amounts of hazardous materials,

including fuels, greases and other lubricants, and coatings such as paint. The handling, use, transport, and

disposal of hazardous materials by the construction phase of the project would comply with existing

regulations of several agencies, including the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health,

Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Division of Occupational Safety and Health, and US

Department of Transportation.

Project operation and maintenance would be similar to the existing school. Maintenance would require the

use of cleaners, solvents, paints, and other custodial products that are potentially hazardous. These materials

would be used in relatively small quantities, clearly labeled, and stored in compliance with state and federal

requirements. With the exercise of normal safety practices, the project would not create substantial hazards to

the public or the environment. Impacts would be less than significant, and no additional analysis of this topic

is required.

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?

Less Than Significant Impact. Due to the ages of the buildings proposed for demolition, it is possible that

they contain lead and asbestos. Lead was used as an ingredient in paint (before 1978) and as a gasoline

additive; it is regulated as a hazardous material. Cal/OSHA considers asbestos-containing building material a

hazardous substance when a bulk sample contains more than 0.1 percent asbestos by weight. Activity that

involves cutting, grinding, or drilling during building renovation or demolition, or relocation of underground

utilities, could release friable asbestos fibers unless proper precautions are taken. Demolition of existing

structures and improvements would comply with all applicable regulations and guidelines pertaining to the

abatement of and protection from exposure to asbestos and lead. These include Construction Safety Orders

1529 (pertaining to asbestos) and 1532.1 (pertaining to lead-based paint) from Title 8 of the California Code

of Regulations and Part 61, Subpart M, of the Code of Federal Regulation (pertaining to asbestos).



Page 52 PlaceWorks

Compliance with applicable laws and regulations would reduce potentially significant hazards related to lead

and asbestos in existing structures and improvements to a less than significant level. This issue will not be

further evaluated in 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?

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is on an existing elementary school campus. There

are no other schools within one-quarter mile of the project site. Operation of the proposed project would be

similar to existing operations and would not result in the release of hazardous emissions. No significant

amounts of hazardous materials, substances, or wastes would be transported, used, or disposed of in

conjunction with the proposed project’s operation. The onsite use of hazardous materials at the proposed

facility would be restricted to cleaning solvents and paints already used by the school’s janitorial and/or

maintenance staff. These materials would be used in small quantities and stored in compliance with state and

federal requirements. No significant impacts would affect the occupants at the project site. This topic will not

be addressed further in the EIR.

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?

No Impact. Based on a review of environmental records collected for the project site and surrounding area

by Environmental Data Resources, the site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to

Government Code Section 65962.5 (DTSC 2017; SWRCB 2017; EDR 2017). Construction activities would

occur within the existing campus boundaries and would not disturb offsite properties. Therefore, no impact

would occur, and this topic will not be addressed further in the EIR.

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

No Impact. The project site is not within an airport land use plan area or within two miles of a public use

airport. The nearest public-use airport is McClellan-Palomar Airport, approximately seven miles north of the

site (Caltrans 2016; Airnav 2017). No impact would occur; therefore, this topic will not be addressed further

in the EIR.

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. There is one private heliport approximately 1.8 miles northeast of the site (Airnav 2017). No

impact would occur; therefore, this topic will not be addressed further in the EIR.



May 2018 Page 53

g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with adopted emergency response

or evacuation plans. The surrounding roadways would continue to provide emergency access to the project

site and surrounding properties during construction and postconstruction. The proposed project would not

result in inadequate emergency access, and impacts to adopted emergency response and evacuation plans are

less than significant; this topic will not be addressed further in the EIR.

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?

No Impact. The project site is in a built-out portion of Encinitas and is not in a fire hazard zone designated

by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE 2009). The proposed project

would not pose wildfire-related hazards to people or structures. No impact would occur, and this topic will

not be discussed in the EIR.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Would the project:

Issues


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? X

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)?

X

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 on- or off-site?

X

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 on- or off-site?

X

e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

X

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X



Page 54 PlaceWorks

Issues


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

X

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? X

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?

X

j) Expose people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X

Comments:

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

Potentially Significant Impact. Development of the proposed project would alter the amount of pervious

and impervious surfaces on the project site. The primary water quality concern associated with long-term

operation of the proposed project would be urban runoff from impervious surfaces. Pollutants such as oil,

grease, and sediment from operation of the facilities could drain into the local storm drain system, resulting

in adverse water quality impacts to receiving waters. During construction, surface runoff could degrade

topsoil and other soil disturbed by grading and excavation activities. The storage and use of hazardous

materials onsite, including treated wood, paints, solvents, fuels, etc., would be potential sources of pollutants

during construction. Uncontrolled urban runoff from the project site could potentially result in conflicts with

water quality standards established by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The EIR will analyze the

potential water quality impacts of the proposed project, and mitigation measures will be provided if required.

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)?

No Impact. The project site is not above a groundwater basin or used as a source of groundwater extraction

or recharge (DWR 2018). The San Dieguito Water District supplies water to the site and the surrounding

community. The project does not propose groundwater wells that would extract groundwater from an

aquifer. Construction and operation of the proposed facilities would not lower the groundwater table or

deplete groundwater supplies. The site does not provide intentional groundwater recharge; therefore, the

project would not interfere with groundwater recharge. There would be no impact to groundwater supplies;

therefore, this topic will not be addressed further in the EIR.



May 2018 Page 55

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 on- or off-site?

Potentially Significant Impact. The project would alter the existing site drainage. Potential impacts related

to erosion and siltation will be discussed in the EIR. Mitigation measures will be provided if required.

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 on- or off-site?

Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project would change the drainage pattern of the site.

Potential flooding impacts caused by the project will be addressed in the EIR. Mitigation measures will be

provided if required.

e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed improvements would change the amount of pervious and

impervious surfaces at the site and affect the amount of runoff. Potential impacts to storm drainage systems

from runoff will be addressed in the EIR. Mitigation measures will be provided if required.

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

Potentially Significant Impact. See section 5.9(a), above. Construction and operation of the proposed

improvements could potentially impact water quality. This topic will be addressed further in the EIR, and

mitigation measures will be provided if required.

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?

No Impact. The proposed project does not propose housing. No impact would occur; therefore, the topic

will not be analyzed further in the EIR.

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?

No Impact. The project site is outside a 100-year flood zone and in an area of low hazard of flooding. The

site is in Zone X, which is defined as a 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain hazard zone (Flood Insurance

Rate Map ID #06073C1045G) (FEMA 2012). No impact would occur, and the topic will not be analyzed

further in the EIR.

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?

No Impact. See section 5.9(h), above. The project site is not identified in a hazardous flood zone on FEMA

flood maps (FEMA 2012). The proposed project would not increase flooding hazards on the project site or



Page 56 PlaceWorks

expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding. No impact would

occur; therefore, this topic will not be discussed further in the EIR.

j) Expose people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

Less Than Significant Impact. A seiche is a surface wave created when a body of water is shaken, usually

by earthquake activity. Seiches are of concern relative to water storage facilities because inundation from a

seiche can occur if the wave overflows a containment wall, such as the wall of a reservoir, water storage tank,

dam, or other artificial body of water. The closest reservoir to the site, San Dieguito Reservoir, is

approximately five miles east in the Rancho Santa Fe community. A potential seiche at the reservoir would not

impact the project site.

A tsunami is earthquake-induced flooding that is created from a large displacement of the ocean floor.

Although the site is approximately 500 feet east of the Pacific Ocean, based on the Tsunami Inundation Map

for Emergency Planning for the Encinitas Quadrangle, the project site is not within a tsunami inundation

area, which is identified west of Coast Highway 101 (CGS 2009). Therefore, the project site is not at risk for

tsunami impacts.

A mudflow is a landslide event in which the debris, land mass, and soils are saturated during their

displacement. Although the project site is close to coastal bluffs, project development would not increase

risks associated with mudflow at the site or surrounding area. The proposed improvements would be

engineered on land mass that is relatively flat, with no slopes that are capable of generating a mudflow.

Impacts would be less than significant, and this topic will not be addressed further in the EIR.

LAND USE AND PLANNING

Would the project:

Issues


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

a) Physically divide an established community? X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation

of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

X

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X



May 2018 Page 57

Comments:

a) Physically divide an established community?

No Impact. The campus consists of school facilities, and the surrounding area is developed with primarily

residential land uses. The proposed improvements would be within the campus boundaries and would not

divide an established community. No impact would occur, and this topic will not be addressed further in the

EIR.

b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

Potentially Significant Impact. The project consists of modernization and reconstruction of an existing

school on a site zoned P/SP (Public/Semi-Public). The proposed improvements would not change the

existing land use and would be consistent with what is allowed under the P/SP zone. The project site,

however, is in a coastal zone planning area, as identified by the Local Coastal Program adopted in the City of

Encinitas General Plan (Encinitas 1995), and the proposed project would require a Coastal Development

Permit. The project’s consistency with the City’s Local Coastal Plan will be evaluated in the EIR.

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

No Impact. The project site is completely developed with school facilities and surrounded by urban

development. As discussed in Section 5.4(f), the project site is in an area designated Developed/Disturbed

Land, within the plan area of the Northern County MHCP, an ecosystem reserve system in seven cities in

northern San Diego County (SANDAG 2003). The site is not designated as habitat preserve. No impact

would occur, and this topic will not be addressed further in the EIR.

MINERAL RESOURCES

Would the project:

Issues


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state?

X

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?

X



Page 58 PlaceWorks

Comments:

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state?

No Impact. The beach community of Cardiff-by-the-Sea has mapped its mineral resources designation

pursuant to the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975. Four mineral resource zones (MRZ)

classify sand, gravel, and crushed rock resources:

▪ MRZ-1. Adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present or likely to be

present.

▪ MRZ-2. Adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present or there is a high

likelihood for their presence, and development should be controlled.

▪ MRZ-3. The significance of mineral deposits cannot be determined from the available data.

▪ MRZ-4. There is insufficient data to assign any other MRZ designation.

The project site is in MRZ-3 (CDC 1983), where the significance of mineral deposits cannot be determined.

This mineral resource designation is intended to prevent incompatible land use development on areas

determined to have significant mineral resource deposits. The project site and its surrounding areas are not

developed with mineral extractions. The proposed project would be consistent with the existing land use as a

school, and no loss of known resources would result from project implementation. Therefore, no impact

would occur, and the topic will not be further addressed in the EIR.

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. No mining sites are identified in the City Encinitas General Plan (Encinitas 2013b). Therefore,

development of the proposed project would not cause a loss of availability of a mining site. No impact would

occur, and the topic will not be further addressed in the EIR.

NOISE

Would the project result in:

Issues


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

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?

X

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? X



May 2018 Page 59

Issues


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

X

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?

X

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?

X

Comments:

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?

Potentially Significant Impact. Demolition, construction, and operation activities associated with the

proposed project have the potential to substantially increase ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. The

EIR will evaluate the existing noise conditions onsite and predict the noise conditions in the future with and

without the project. It is anticipated that heavy construction equipment would create excessive short-term

noise levels. The proposed project would also generate additional vehicle trips from and to the project site.

Applicable noise standards will be provided in the EIR, and mitigation measures will be provided if required.

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project involves excavation, grading, and construction

activities that would use various heavy construction equipment that could generate excessive groundborne

vibration. Therefore, short-term construction groundborne vibration impacts and applicable regulatory and

environmental settings will be addressed in the EIR. Mitigation measures will be provided if required.

However, the continued operation of the site as a school would not involve long-term groundborne vibration

impacts, and operational vibration impacts will not be addressed in the EIR.

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

Potentially Significant Impact. See above Section 5.12(a).



Page 60 PlaceWorks

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

Potentially Significant Impact. See above Section 5.12(a).

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?

No Impact. The project site is not within an airport land use plan area or within two miles of a public use

airport. The nearest public-use airport is McClellan-Palomar Airport, approximately seven miles north of the

site (Caltrans 2016; Airnav 2017). Therefore, project implementation would not expose people to excessive

noise levels from aircraft approaching or departing the airport. No impact is anticipated, and this issue will

not be addressed in the EIR.

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. There is one private heliport approximately 1.8 miles northeast of the project site (Airnav 2017).

At that distance, aircraft noise would be negligible. No impact is anticipated, and this issue will not be

addressed in the EIR.

POPULATION AND HOUSING

Would the project:

Issues


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

X

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X

c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X

Comments:

a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would increase the capacity of Cardiff School by one

classroom or 22 seats. However, students that would fill the new classroom would be from the District, and



May 2018 Page 61

the project would not directly increase population growth in the area. No construction of homes or

businesses is proposed, nor extensions of roads or other infrastructure. Project implementation would not

induce population growth. Impacts would be less than significant, and the topic will not be addressed further

in the EIR.

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

No Impact. Project construction would be restricted to the existing Cardiff School campus, and no housing

would be displaced or replaced. No impact would occur. This topic will not be further addressed in the EIR.

c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

No Impact. There are no residents or homes onsite. The project would not displace people or require the

construction of replacement housing. No impact would occur, and the topic will not be addressed further in

the EIR.

PUBLIC SERVICES

Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or

physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the

construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service

ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Issues


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

a) Fire protection? X b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Parks? X e) Other public facilities? X

Comments:

a) Fire protection?

Less Than Significant Impact. The Encinitas Fire Department provides fire protection and emergency

medical services to the project site. The nearest fire stations are Station 2 at 618 Birmingham Drive,

approximately 0.5 miles east of the project site, and Station 1 at 415 Second Street, approximately 1.7 miles

north of the site. Although the project would increase Cardiff School’s building space by 4,760 square feet

and its enrollment capacity by 22 seats, the increases are not substantial, and the campus would continue to

operate as an elementary school. Adequate fire access would be provided to the campus, and the project



Page 62 PlaceWorks

would not negatively affect street access to the surrounding uses. Therefore, project implementation would

not substantially affect the department’s response times or require expansion of fire protection services such

that new or physically altered fire stations would be required. Impacts would be less than significant, and this

issue will not be further addressed in the EIR.

b) Police protection?

Less Than Significant Impact. Law enforcement and police protection services are provided by the County

of San Diego Sheriff ’s Department North Coastal Station at 175 North El Camino Real, Encinitas, 2.25

miles northeast of the site. Although the proposed project would increase Cardiff School’s enrollment

capacity by 22 seats, the increase is not substantial and would not warrant additional law enforcement

facilities. Impacts to police protection services would be less than significant; therefore, this topic will not be

addressed further in the EIR.

c) Schools?

No Impact. School service needs are related to the size of a residential population, geographic area served,

and community characteristics. The proposed project would improve aging Cardiff School facilities and

would not cause a demand for new school facilities. Once constructed, the new school facilities would

continue to serve the existing Cardiff School program and students in the District attendance area. No

negative impact on school facilities or services would occur. This topic will not be analyzed further in the

EIR.

d) Parks?

No Impact. The proposed project would not generate a demand for park space, which is typically caused by

population and/or employment growth. The project would improve Cardiff School’s recreational facilities

that are available for community use via a joint use agreement with the City and Civic Center Act. As the

proposed project would enhance recreational facilities used by the community, it would have an indirect

beneficial effect on parks, and no negative impact would occur. This topic will not be evaluated in the EIR.

e) Other public facilities?

No Impact. The need for public services and facilities (e.g., libraries, hospitals, childcare, teen or senior

centers) is typically caused by population growth. As the proposed project is the modernization and

reconstruction of an existing school, it would not result in the need for new or expanded public facilities. No

impact to public facilities would occur; this topic will not be evaluated in the EIR.



May 2018 Page 63

RECREATION

Issues


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

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?

X

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?

X

Comments:

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?

No Impact. Similar to existing conditions, operation of Cardiff School would not require students to use

existing neighborhood or regional parks. The proposed project would improve the school’s outdoor

recreational spaces, which are recognized under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act and are used by

the school and community. The project would enhance not only the facilities’ aesthetic qualities, but also their

utility. The baseball field—which has been underutilized since the opening of Cardiff Sports Park—would be

converted to a soccer/multiuse field; the playground apparatus that bifurcates the existing fields would be

relocated to the southwest corner of the site to enhance security and supervision; the project also includes

terraced seating west of the multipurpose building that would provide views of the sports fields and ocean;

and restroom facilities with direct access from the fields would be constructed. The proposed project would

have an overall beneficial effect on recreational facilities. Therefore, no negative impacts on offsite parks and

recreational facilities would occur. This topic will not be further considered in the EIR.

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?

Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 5.15(a), the proposed project would not require

construction of offsite recreational facilities. The proposed project includes reconstruction of recreational

facilities at Cardiff School. The environmental effects related to the whole project, including the recreational

facility improvements, are discussed throughout this Initial Study and the forthcoming EIR. Therefore, this

topic will not be further reviewed in the EIR.



Page 64 PlaceWorks

TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC

Would the project:

Issues


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

X

b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

X

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

X

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)?

X

e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding

public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

X

g) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X

Comments:

a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project would generate new vehicle trips from parents, staff,

and maintenance workers. Short-term, project-related construction activities would also temporarily increase

vehicle trips on nearby roadways for the duration of the construction phase. A traffic impact analysis is being

prepared for the proposed project, and the method, findings, and conclusions of the analysis will be carried

through to the EIR. Mitigation measures will be provided if required.



May 2018 Page 65

b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

Potentially Significant Impact. The traffic impact analysis will address whether the project conflicts with

the congestion management program. This topic will be addressed in the EIR, and mitigation measures will

be provided if required.

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

No Impact. The nearest airport is McClellan-Palomar Airport, approximately seven miles north of the

project site (Caltrans 2016; Airnav 2017). Project development and operation would have no impact on air

traffic patterns and would not increase air traffic levels. No impact would occur, and this topic will not be

addressed further in the EIR.

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)?

Potentially Significant Impact. With the proposed expansion of the school’s onsite passenger loading area

and parking lot, the project would alter onsite circulation. Traffic hazards related to the project’s design and

compatibility with the surrounding uses will be addressed in the EIR. Mitigation measures will be provided if

required.

e) Result in inadequate emergency access?

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed reconfigured campus would be designed to meet fire and life

safety standards established in the CBC and as enforced by the Division of the State Architect and local fire

marshal. The proposed project would not change street configurations near the project site that could affect

emergency access. In fact, the proposed project would increase the number of onsite passenger loading

spaces and onsite parking spaces, which would move vehicles off the street network and enhance traffic flow,

consequently improving emergency access during the school’s morning and afternoon bell periods. Therefore,

impacts would be less than significant, and this issue will not be further evaluated in the EIR.

f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

Less Than Significant Impact. North County Transit District (NCTD) operates Bus Route 101 and the

NCTD Coaster and Amtrak rail lines along Coast Highway 101; the bus route is approximately 350 feet and

the rail lines are 300 feet west of the project site. SANDAG has approved the Coastal Rail Trail, which

includes a pedestrian and bicycle path, on the east side of the NCTD right-of-way along San Elijo Avenue,

and the City of Encinitas has a planned Class 2 bicycle lane on San Elijo Avenue (Encinitas 2005b).

The proposed project would not impact any of these existing and planned facilities or affect their

performance. The proposed improvements would be constructed on the existing school campus and along



Page 66 PlaceWorks

Montgomery Avenue and Mozart Avenue, away from these facilities. Consequently, permanent operation of

the proposed project would not directly affect existing bus and rail operations or planned improvements

along San Elijo Avenue. Any potential conflicts related to project construction vehicles accessing San Elijo

Avenue and adjoining streets would be temporary and unlikely to coincide with improvements related to the

planned Coastal Rail Trail or Class 2 bicycle lane on San Elijo Avenue. The proposed project would not

conflict with adopted alternative transportation policies, plans, and programs, and impacts to alternative

transportation facilities would be less than significant. This topic will not be further discussed in the EIR.

g) Result in inadequate parking capacity?

Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project would expand Cardiff School’s parking lot on

Montgomery Avenue; the number of onsite parking stalls would increase by 11, from 29 stalls to 40 stalls. A

parking analysis is underway to determine if the increased number of stalls is adequate for the project’s

demand. Additionally, construction activities would require parking and staging that could affect street

parking. Therefore, construction and operational parking impacts will be further discussed in the EIR;

mitigation measures will be provided if required.

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined

in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically

defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a

California Native American tribe, and that is:

Issues


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or

X

b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

X

a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local

register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or

Potentially Significant Impact. A historical resources assessment is being prepared for the proposed

project. Although it is unlikely that existing improvements on the project site are related to tribal cultural



May 2018 Page 67

resources, the findings and recommendation of the historical resources assessment will be in disclosed in the

EIR; mitigation measures will be provided if required.

b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial

evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources

Code section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code

Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California

Native American tribe.

Potentially Significant Impact. The Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File record

search found no record of tribal resources on the project site. As part of its due diligence, the District has

contacted Native American tribes identified by the NAHC that may be culturally affiliated with the project

area to determine if local knowledge of tribal cultural resources is available about the project site and

surrounding area. Information received will be disclosed in the EIR, as appropriate, and mitigation measures

will be provided if required.

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

Would the project:

Issues


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

a) Exceed waste water treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? X

b) Require or result in the construction of new water or waste water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

X

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?

X

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

X

e) Result in a determination by the waste water 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?

X

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? X

g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? X



Page 68 PlaceWorks

Comments:

a) Exceed waste water treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

Less Than Significant Impact. The State Water Resources Control Board adopted Statewide General Waste

Discharge Requirements for Sewer Systems (Water Quality Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ) to regulate all

collections systems throughout the state to reduce or eliminate sewer overflows, which pollute the

environment. The proposed project would not change the existing school use of the project site; therefore,

the types of wastewater generated at the site would not change from existing conditions, and the proposed

project would not require special wastewater treatment. Therefore, impacts to wastewater treatment

requirements would be less than significant, and this topic will not be further addressed in the EIR.

b) Require or result in the construction of new water or waste water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

Less Than Significant Impact. The existing school facilities are connected to the municipal water

distribution and wastewater collection systems. Upon implementation of the proposed project, the new

and/or reconstructed facilities would also be connected to the existing water distribution and wastewater

collection systems.

Wastewater Treatment

Wastewater collected at the project site is treated and disposed by the San Elijo Joint Powers Authority, which

owns and operates the San Elijo Water Reclamation Facility (WRF). The San Elijo WRF has the capacity to

treat 5.25 million gallons of wastewater per day (mgd); current flows are 3 mgd, with peak flows of up to 6

mgd (SEJPA 2015). The San Elijo WRF has an average remaining treatment capacity of approximately 2.25

mgd.

The proposed project would increase the enrollment capacity of Cardiff School by 22 students (1 classroom).

Assuming a wastewater generation factor of 8 gallons of wastewater per day (gpd) per student, the project

would increase wastewater production by 176 gpd2 (Los Angeles 2006). This represents a 0.01 percent

increase of San Elijo WRF’s remaining treatment capacity. The increase in wastewater generation is negligible,

and the San Elijo WRF would be able to accommodate the anticipated wastewater generation. Impacts to

wastewater treatment facilities would be less than significant, and this topic will not be discussed in the EIR.

Water Treatment

Water treatment facilities filter and/or disinfect water before it is delivered to customers. The San Dieguito

Water District (SDWD) supplies water to the project site and surrounding area. The water is treated at the

R.E. Badger filtration plant, which is jointly owned and operated by the Santa Fe Irrigation District and the

SDWD. The Badger plant has the capacity to treat up to 40 mgd of water and treats over 7 billion gallons of

2 8 gpd x 22 students = 176 gpd. 176 gpd / 2,250,000 gpd = 0.00008 = 0.01%



May 2018 Page 69

water annually; therefore, the R.E. Badger Filtration plant has a remaining daily treatment capacity of

approximately 20,821,9183 gpd.

According to consultation with the SDWD Engineering Department, based on a three-year average of actual

water consumption, operation of the Cardiff Elementary School has an average water demand of 1,600 gpd

per acre (Olson 2018). Based on the project site acreage of 7.4 acres and the existing seating capacity of 418

seats, one seat has a water demand of 28.3 gpd.4 Therefore, the project’s increase of 22 seats would result in

an increased water demand of approximately 622.6 gpd—this is less than 0.003 percent5 of the available

water treatment capacity. The increase is negligible, and project impacts on water treatment facilities are less

than significant. This issue will not be further addressed in the EIR.

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. As discussed in Section 5.9(e), the proposed project would include a new

storm drain system on the project site that would ensure that postconstruction runoff would be less than

existing. Therefore, offsite stormwater drainage facilities would be minimally affected, if at all, and the project

would not cause the need to expand offsite stormwater drainage facilities. Impacts would be less than

significant, and the EIR will not evaluate offsite stormwater drainage facilities.

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

Less Than Significant Impact. Project implementation would increase the amount of water required to

serve the project site. The project site is in the SDWD. According to the SDWD 2015 Urban Water

Management Plan (UWMP), the SDWD obtains its water from Lake Hodges and imports treated and

untreated water from San Diego County Water Authority (SDWD 2016). The 2015 SDWD UWMP states

that the SDWD had a water supply of 6,352 acre-feet per year (afy) in 2015, which includes purchased and

imported water, supply from storage, and recycled water. By 2035, the SDWD is projected to have a potable

water supply of 7,838 afy. According to the UWMP, the SDWD would have sufficient water supplies to serve

the SDWD service area demand of water during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry year conditions through

2035 (SDWD 2016). Therefore, SDWD would continue to have water supplies available to serve the project’s

increase in water demand of 622.6 gpd. Therefore, this topic will not be addressed further in the EIR.

e) Result in a determination by the waste water 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. See Sections 5.18(a) and (b), above. The project would result in an increase

in enrollment capacity of 22 seats and a negligible increase in wastewater generation. The existing wastewater

3 40,000,000 gpd x 365 days = 14,600,000,000 gallons per year (gpy). 14,600,000,000 gpy – 7,000,000,000 gpy = 7,600,000,000 gpy.

7,600,000,000 gpy / 365 days = 20,821,918 gpd. 4 1,600 gpd/acre x 7.4 acres = 11,840 gpd. 11,840 gpd / 418 seats = 28.3 gpd per seat. 5 28.3 gpd x 22 seats = 622.6 gpd. 622.6 gpd / 20,821,918 gpd = 0.00003 = 0.003%.



Page 70 PlaceWorks

treatment provider would be able to accommodate the project increase. Therefore, impacts to wastewater

facilities will not be addressed further in the EIR.

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?

Less Than Significant Impact. Waste from the project site is collected by EDCO Services and transported

to Escondido Disposal, Inc., a waste processing and transfer facility at 1035 West Washington Avenue in

Escondido. Waste is then transported to the Sycamore Landfill, which has a maximum daily intake capacity of

5,000 tons of waste per day (tpd); it receives approximately 4,000 tpd and thus would have a remaining daily

intake capacity of 1,000 tpd. The landfill has a total remaining capacity of 113,972,637 cubic yards or

30,772,612 tons (CalRecycle 2018).

Most of the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery’s (CalRecycle) sample solid waste

generation rates for public venues and institutions reflect the volume of refuse generated per student,

employee, or visitor (CalRecycle 2016). The proposed improvements would increase school capacity by 22

seats. Using a waste generation rate of 0.5 pound per student per day, project implementation would increase

waste generation by approximately 11 pounds per day. This increase would be less than 0.0016 percent of the

landfill’s remaining daily allowable intake and could be easily accommodated. Therefore, project impacts on

landfill capacity would be less than significant, and the topic will not be addressed in the EIR.

g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

Less Than Significant Impact. Solid waste would be generated during construction and operation of the

proposed project. The District would comply with all county and state solid waste diversion, reduction, and

recycling mandates, including the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan. To reduce the amount of

waste going into local landfills from schools, the state passed the School Diversion and Environmental

Education Law, SB 373, which required CalRecycle to develop school waste reduction tools for use by school

districts. In compliance with this law, CalRecycle encourages school districts to establish and maintain a paper

recycling program in all classrooms, administrative offices, and other areas owned and leased by the school

district. Participation in this and other such programs would reduce solid waste generated from the proposed

project.

The District and its construction contractor would comply with all applicable laws and regulations and make

every reasonable effort to reuse and/or recycle the construction debris that would otherwise be taken to a

landfill. They would dispose of hazardous wastes, including paint used during construction, only at facilities

permitted to receive them and in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations. The proposed project

would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste

disposal. Impacts to federal, state, and local statutes concerning solid waste would be less than significant.

This issue will not be further analyzed in the EIR.

6 1,000 tpd x 2,000 lbs = 2,000,000 lbs. 11 lbs / 2,000,000 lbs = 0.00001 = 0.001%.



May 2018 Page 71

MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

Issues


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

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 a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

X

b) The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals?

X

c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)

X

d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

X

Comments:

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 a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

Potentially Significant Impact. The project site contains structures that are eligible for consideration in the

California Register of Historical Resources and may contain buried resources that are important to California

history or prehistory. The site also contains vegetation that could be of special biological concern and provide

nesting opportunities for avian wildlife. The EIR will address the project’s potential impacts to biological,

cultural, and tribal resources.

b) The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals?

Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed Cardiff School Modernization and Reconstruction project

would improve existing school facilities that would continue to accommodate elementary-aged students

within the District attendance boundaries. Project implementation would comply with both short-term and

long-term environmental goals established by state and local policies, laws, and regulations. The EIR will

identify the residual environmental impacts that would occur after complying with the applicable systems and



Page 72 PlaceWorks

will identify mitigation measures to ensure that short-term and long-term environmental impacts are feasibly

mitigated, if required.

c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerablewhen viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future projects.)

Potentially Significant Impact. The EIR will further consider the project’s contribution to cumulative

impacts in connection with known projects near the site and in the region.

d) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects onhuman beings, either directly or indirectly?

Potentially Significant Impact. All of the potentially significant impacts identified in this Initial Study

could have direct or indirect substantial adverse impacts on human beings. These impacts will be addressed in

the EIR, and mitigation measures will be provided if required.

May 2018 Page 73

6. References

Airnav, LLC. 2017. Airport Information. Accessed June 23, 2017. http://www.airnav.com/airports.

California Department of Conservation (CDC). 1983. Mineral Land Classification Map. Encinitas

Quadrangle Special Report 153 Plate 11.

ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sr/SR_153/SR-153_Plate-11.pdf.

______. 1986. Landslide Hazards in the Encinitas Quadrangle, San Diego County, California. Landslide

Hazard Identification Map No. 4.

ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/ofr/OFR_86-08/OFR_86-08.pdf.

______. 1995. Landslide Hazards in the North Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County,

California. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/ofr/OFR_95-04/OFR_95-04_Plate35D.pdf.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE). 2009, June 11. Fire and Resources

Assessment Program. Encinitas Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map.

http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps/FHSZ/san_diego/Encinitas.pdf.

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2013, January. Public Sector and

Institutions: Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates.

http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteChar/WasteGenRates/Institution.htm.

_______. 2016. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates.

https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates.

———. 2018. Facility/Site Summary Details: Sunshine Canyon City/County Landfill (37-AA-0023).

http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/37-AA-0023/Detail/.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2011, September 7 (updated). California Scenic Highway

Mapping System. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm.

______. 2016, March. 2016 California Public Use Airports and Federal Airfields. http://dot.ca.gov/hq

/planning/aeronaut/documents/maps/PublicUseAirports_MilitaryAirfieldsMap.pdf.

California Geological Survey. 2009. Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, State of California,

County of San Diego, Encinitas Quadrangle, scale 1:24,000. California Department of Conservation.

http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geologic_hazards/Tsunami/Inundation_Maps/SanDiego/Doc

uments/Tsunami_Inundation_Encinitas_Quad_SanDiego.pdf.

______. 2015. Regulatory Maps Portal. California Department of Conservation.

http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=regulatorymaps.


6. References

Page 74 PlaceWorks

Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2017. Envirostor. Database. Accessed June 23, 2017.

https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.

Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2018, February 6. Groundwater Information Center Map

Interactive Map Application. https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/gicima/.

Division of Land Resource Protection (DLRP). 2014, San Diego County Important Farmland 2014.

ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2014/sdg14_w.pdf.

Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). 2017, September 25. The EDR Radius Map Report with

GeoCheck.

Encinitas, City of. 1995. General Plan Introduction.

http://archive.ci.encinitas.ca.us/weblink8/0/doc/699890/Page1.aspx.

______. 2005a. Design Guidelines. Planning Commission and City Council.

http://ci.encinitas.ca.us/Portals/0/City%20Documents/Documents/Development%20Services/Pla

nning/Land%20Development/Design%20Review%20Guidelines.pdf.

______. 2005b. City of Encinitas Bikeway Master Plan.

http://www.ci.encinitas.ca.us/Portals/0/City%20Documents/Documents/Development%20Service

s/Planning/Advanced%20Planning/CMLS/Bikeway%20Master%20Plan.pdf.

______. 2013a. General Plan Land Use Element. http://www.lee-associates.com/elee/sandiego

/LeeLandTeam/3111ManchesterAve/GeneralPlan-LandUseElement.pdf.

______. 2013b. General Plan. http://archive.ci.encinitas.ca.us/weblink8/browse.aspx?startid=665622.

______. 2017a, November 27 (updated). Zoning Designations. Planning and Building Department.

http://ci.encinitas.ca.us/Portals/0/City%20Documents/Documents/Development%20Services/Pla

nning/Land%20Development/Zoning%20Designations.pdf.

______. 2017b. E-Zoning Map. https://ezoning.encinitasca.gov/zoningtest.html?site=zoning&start

=geocode&srchType=0&search=1888%20Montgomery%20Avenue.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 2012. Flood Map Service Center. Accessed January 31,

2018. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search.

Olson, Christina. 12, April 2018. Email discussion of water demand. San Dieguito Water District.

Los Angeles, City of. 2006. L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide. http://www.environmentla.org/programs

/Thresholds/Complete%20Threshold%20Guide%202006.pdf.

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2003, March. Final North County Multiple Habitat

Conservation Program. http://www.sandag.org/index.asp?projectid=97&fuseaction=projects.detail.

ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2014/sdg14_w.pdf

https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search


6. References

May 2018 Page 75

San Dieguito Water District (SDWD). 2016, July 26. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Prepared by

Infrastructure Engineering Corporation. http://www.encinitasca.gov/Portals/0/City%20Documents

/Documents/San%20Dieguito%20Water%20District/Engineering/UWMP%202015.pdf.

San Elijo Joint Powers Authority (SEJPA). 2015. The San Elijo Water Reclamation Facility.

http://www.sejpa.org/PDFfiles/4C%20WR%20Facility%20Link%202.pdf.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2017. Geotracker. Database. Accessed June 23, 2017.

https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2018, March 15. National Wetlands Mapper.

http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.HTML.


6. References

Page 76 PlaceWorks


May 2018 Page 77

7. List of Preparers


Randy Peterson, Bond Program Manager

PlaceWorks

Barbara Heyman, Associate Principal

Michael Paul, Project Planner

Alexis Whitaker, LEED AP, Environmental Scientist

Jasmine Osman, Environmental Assistant

7. List of Preparers

Page 78 PlaceWorks



CARDIFF SCHOOL MODERNIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION … project will address the most critical physical...

Documents

Transcript of CARDIFF SCHOOL MODERNIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION … project will address the most critical physical...