Final Environmental Impact Report for the Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE AUDUBON K–8 SCHOOL MODERNIZATION PROJECT

SCH 2015041062

P REPARED FOR THE :

San Diego Unified School District Facilities Planning and Construction 4860 Ruffner Street San Diego, CA 92111

P R E P A R E D B Y :

ICF International 525 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101

October 2015

ICF International. 2015. Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project EIR. Final. October. (ICF 00279.15.) San Diego, California. Prepared for San Diego Unified School District, San Diego, California.

Contents

Page Responses to Comments RC-1 List of Tables and Figures ...... D List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... E Chapter 1 Executive Summary ...... 1-1 1.1 Project Synopsis ...... 1-1 1.2 Summary of Significant Effects ...... 1-1 1.3 Areas of Controversy Known to the Lead Agency ...... 1-1 1.4 Issues to Be Resolved ...... 1-2 1.5 Project Alternatives ...... 1-2 1.5.1 No-Project Alternative ...... 1-2 Chapter 2 Introduction ...... 2-1 2.1 Background ...... 2-1 2.1.1 San Diego Unified School District ...... 2-1 2.1.2 Long-Range Facilities Master Plan and Propositions S and Z ...... 2-1 2.2 Project Objectives ...... 2-2 2.3 Notice of Preparation ...... 2-3 2.4 Scope of the EIR ...... 2-3 2.5 Intended Uses of the EIR ...... 2-4 2.6 Matrix of Project Approvals and Permits ...... 2-4 Chapter 3 Environmental Setting and Project Description ...... 3-1 3.1 Environmental Setting ...... 3-1 3.1.1 Regional Setting ...... 3-1 3.1.2 Location and Description of School Site ...... 3-1 3.2 Project Description ...... 3-1 3.2.1 Modernization Improvements ...... 3-2 3.2.2 Construction Activities ...... 3-2 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis ...... 4-1 Section 4.1 Cultural Resources ...... 4.1-1 4.1.1 Existing Conditions ...... 4.1-1 4.1.2 Impact Significance Criteria ...... 4.1-5 4.1.3 Impact Analysis ...... 4.1-7 Chapter 5 Growth Inducement ...... 5-1

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 A Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

Chapter 6 Environmental Effects Found Not to Be Significant ...... 6-1 6.1 Aesthetic Resources ...... 6-1 6.2 Agricultural Resources ...... 6-2 6.3 Air Quality ...... 6-2 6.4 Biological Resources ...... 6-3 6.5 Cultural Resources ...... 6-4 6.6 Geology and Soils ...... 6-5 6.7 Greenhouse Gases ...... 6-6 6.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...... 6-7 6.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ...... 6-8 6.10 Land Use and Planning ...... 6-9 6.11 Mineral Resources ...... 6-10 6.12 Noise ...... 6-10 6.13 Population and Housing ...... 6-11 6.14 Public Services ...... 6-11 6.15 Recreation ...... 6-11 6.16 Transportation and Traffic ...... 6-11 6.17 Utilities and Service Systems ...... 6-12 Chapter 7 Cumulative Impacts ...... 7-1 7.1 Methodology ...... 7-1 7.1.1 Scope of Analysis ...... 7-1 7.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis ...... 7-1 7.2.1 Aesthetics ...... 7-2 7.2.2 Air Quality ...... 7-2 7.2.3 Biological Resources ...... 7-3 7.2.4 Cultural Resources ...... 7-4 7.2.5 Geology and Soils ...... 7-4 7.2.6 Greenhouse Gases ...... 7-4 7.2.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...... 7-5 7.2.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ...... 7-5 7.2.9 Noise ...... 7-5 7.2.10 Transportation and Traffic ...... 7-6 7.2.11 Utilities and Service Systems ...... 7-6 Chapter 8 Alternatives ...... 8-1 8.1 Alternatives Considered but Rejected ...... 8-1 8.1.1 Alternative Site Location ...... 8-1 8.1.2 No Administration Building or Security Fencing Modifications ...... 8-1

Final Environmental Impact Report October 2015 B Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project ICF 279.15

8.2 Alternative Carried Forward ...... 8-2 8.2.1 No-Project Alternative ...... 8-2 Chapter 9 References ...... 9-1 9.1 Printed References ...... 9-1 Chapter 10 List of Contributors and Agencies/Organizations Contacted...... 10-1 10.1 ICF International ...... 10-1 10.2 Agencies and Organizations ...... 10-1 10.2.1 San Diego Unified School District ...... 10-1

Appendix A Initial Study Checklist Appendix B Cultural Resources Evaluation

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 C Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

Tables and Figures

Table Page

1-1 Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...... 1-3

2-1 Permits and Agency Approvals ...... 2-4

7-1 List of Projects within 2 Miles of the Proposed Project ...... 7-2

Figure Follows Page

3-1 Regional Location ...... 3-2

3-2 Project Vicinity ...... 3-2

3-3 Site Plan ...... 3-2

Final Environmental Impact Report October 2015 D Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project ICF 279.15

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AB Assembly Bill ACM asbestos-containing material ADA Americans with Disabilities Act BMPs best management practices CARB California Air Resources Board CCR California Code of Regulations CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CEQA Checklist CEQA Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form CO carbon monoxide

CO2 carbon dioxide CRHR California Register of Historical Resources District San Diego Unified School District DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control EIR environmental impact report EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESL Environmentally Sensitive Lands GHG greenhouse gases HABS Historic American Buildings Survey HVAC heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning LBP lead-based paint Master Plan Long-Range Facilities Master Plan MSCP Multiple Species Conservation Program

MTCO2e metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent NOP Notice of Preparation NOX oxides of nitrogen NRHP National Register of Historic Places

O3 ozone PM10 particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less PM2.5 particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less PRC Public Resources Code Project Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 E Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

PWA Public Works Administration RAQS Regional Air Quality Strategy SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments SCH State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse SDAB San Diego Air Basin SDCAPCD San Diego County Air Pollution Control District SR State Route SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones VOCs volatile organic compounds WPA Works Progress Administration

Final Environmental Impact Report October 2015 F Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project ICF 279.15

Response to Comments

The San Diego Unified School District (District) prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project (SCH 2015041062) (Project) and circulated the Draft EIR for a 45-day public review period pursuant to requirements of Chapter 3, Sections 15080 to 15097, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The review period gives agencies, organizations, and members of the public the opportunity to review the Draft EIR and provide comments on the document and the environmental analysis presented therein. The 45-day review period commenced on July 17, 2015 and ended on August 31, 2015. Initially, the Notice of Availability (NOA) posted on the District’s website and with the County Clerk indicated that the review period would occur between July 17, 2015 and August 17, 2015; however, the review period was updated to occur through August 31, 2015 to include a full 45 days. The District prepared and submitted a revised NOA to the County Clerk and updated its website on August 14, 2015. The public review period for the State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse (SCH) commenced on July 17, 2015 and was correctly noticed to occur through August 31, 2015, so no updated noticing was necessary with the SCH. During the review period, the District received two letters from reviewing agencies, organizations, and individuals commenting on the Draft EIR. Based on the comments received, no revisions to the Draft EIR were necessary in the Final EIR. Comment letters were received from the SCH and an interested party (Josette Walsh). The SCH also confirmed that no state agencies submitted comment letters to the SCH in response to the Draft EIR.

Typically, in response to comments received from reviewing agencies and public respondents, the Final EIR contains revisions that clarify and/or correct the Draft EIR, where necessary. However, based on comments received in response to the Project, no revisions were made to the EIR. Therefore, the Final EIR is unchanged from the Draft EIR. No significant new information is presented in the Final EIR that would require recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to Section 15088.5(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Specifically, the Final EIR does not conclude that (1) a new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed for implementation; (2) a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result from the project; (3) a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it; or (4) the Draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.

All letters commenting on the Draft EIR have been reproduced and are included in this section, followed by the District’s responses to those letters. All agencies and members of the public from whom an individual letter was received during the public review period are listed below in this introductory section. Each issue that was raised within each comment letter has been assigned a consecutive number that corresponds to a comment response number. In order to assist in the location of comment letters and responses, the respective names of the authors of the comment letters are indicated prior to each comment letter response.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 RC-1 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

San Diego Unified School District Response to Comments

Draft EIR Comment Letters Comment Letter and Number(s) State Agencies Governor’s Office of Planning and Research A (1) Interested Parties Josette Walsh B (1)

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 RC-2 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

San Diego Unified School District Response to Comments

District Responses to Agency and Public Comments Comment Letter A. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Scott Morgan, Director

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 RC-3 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

San Diego Unified School District Response to Comments

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 RC-4 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

San Diego Unified School District Response to Comments

Response to Comment Letter A. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Scott Morgan, Director A-1. This letter certifies that the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research submitted the Draft EIR to selected State of California agencies for review and comment, and that none of these agencies submitted comments by the public review closing date. The letter acknowledges that the District has complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to CEQA requirements. Formal response by the District to this letter is not necessary.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 RC-5 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

San Diego Unified School District Response to Comments

Comment Letter B. Interested Party, Josette Walsh (July 31, 2015)

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 RC-6 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

San Diego Unified School District Response to Comments

Response to Comment Letter B. Interested Party, Josette Walsh B-1. The comment includes landscaping and neighborhood appearance concerns and notes that the proposed Project does not include exterior landscaping. Due to budget constraints, the proposed modernization activities as currently proposed do not include improvements to exterior landscaping. Depending on the final costs of the Project as currently proposed, landscaping improvements including a courtyard with a trellis and a fence may be included at the portion of the lawn at the school’s entry. The decision to include landscaping improvements would be made after a bid is awarded to implement the Project. This comment does not raise any issues with the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR. No further response is necessary.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 RC-7 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

Chapter 1 Executive Summary

1.1 Project Synopsis The San Diego Unified School District (District), as the lead agency, prepared this environmental impact report (EIR) for the proposed Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project (project). The purpose of this EIR is to provide the decision-making body at the District as well as the general public with information concerning the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. This EIR assesses impacts that would result with project implementation, presents mitigation measures to avoid or reduce the level of impact, and provides alternatives to reduce or avoid the environmental impacts.

The District proposes modernization improvements for an aging facility to provide a safe and contemporary learning environment, in accordance with Propositions S and Z. These improvements include renovations of various learning environments and support areas, infrastructure repairs and upgrades, and renovation of the parking for the proposed joint-use field. The project would not increase student capacity at the school. The improvements would be completed over multiple years as funding becomes available; the improvements are scheduled to begin as soon as late 2015.

The primary objectives of the modernization project are to provide safe and modern amenities and achieve Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance. The improvements identified as part of Propositions S and Z represent a general list of goals for improvement and modernization activities and therefore also represent the objectives of the project.

1.2 Summary of Significant Effects This EIR has been prepared to assess potentially significant effects on the environment that could result from implementation of the proposed project as well as mitigation measures that could be implemented to reduce impacts to less than significant. An EIR must also identify impacts that cannot be mitigated. A summary of the proposed project’s potential impacts and recommended mitigation measures is provided in Table 1-1, immediately following this summary. The table also identifies the level of significance of each impact after implementation of the recommended mitigation measures.

The data and conclusions in the EIR indicate that implementation of the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts on cultural resources (historic) with implementation of mitigation measures. All other impacts would be less than significant.

1.3 Areas of Controversy Known to the Lead Agency Section 15123(b)(2) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires an EIR to disclose areas of controversy that have been raised by agencies and the public. The District has not received comments from agencies or the public regarding sources of controversy. The Notice of Preparation (NOP) comment letters are discussed in Section 1.3 of this EIR. A copy of the NOP is included in Appendix A to this EIR.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 1-1 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

SDUSD Chapter 1. Executive Summary

1.4 Issues to Be Resolved As discussed in detail in Section 3.1, “Cultural Resources,” implementation of the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts on cultural resources (historic) with implementation of mitigation measures. All other impacts would be less than significant. Because significant impacts would result from the proposed project, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, would be required.

1.5 Project Alternatives Per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, an EIR shall consider a range of alternatives that meet most of the project objectives and avoid or reduce any significant impacts of the project. The range of alternatives analyzed must also be feasible. In addition, they must consider not adopting the proposed project by comparing the advantages and disadvantages of implementing the proposed project. As discussed in Chapter 7, “Alternatives,” the following alternatives were considered but rejected:

 Alternative Site Location

 No Administration Building or Security Fencing Modifications

The following alternative was considered and analyzed in detail in Chapter 7 of this EIR. 1.5.1 No-Project Alternative The No-Project Alternative assumes that modernization improvements under Propositions S and Z would not be implemented. The District would not implement the upgrades associated with renovations of various learning environments and support areas, infrastructure repairs and upgrades, or renovation of the parking lot for the proposed joint-use field. The No-Project Alternative would avoid the significant project impacts associated with cultural resources (historic); however, this alternative would not meet the basic objectives of the proposed project. The No- Project Alternative is not recommended for selection and implementation.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 1-2 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

SDUSD Chapter 1. Executive Summary

Table 1-1. Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Significance of Impact(s) Impact(s) Recommended Mitigation Measure(s) After Mitigation 3.1 Cultural Resources Impact CR-1: Given its design, the proposed CR-MM CUL-1: HABS-like Documentation of Audubon K–8 School Significant and project would result in a substantial adverse SDUSD will arrange for the preparation of historical resource Unavoidable change to a historical resource by altering some documentation of the significant 1955 portion of Audubon K–8 School of its character-defining features and thereby (Buildings A, B, C, and D, the kindergarten building, and associated substantially diminishing its historical integrity. landscape elements). This documentation will be modeled on the The impact on a historical resource, associated National Park Service’s Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) with implementation of the proposed program and prepared along the lines of a HABS Level III treatment. modernization improvements, would be This will include large-format black-and-white photographs that considered a significant impact of the project. provide exterior views of the significant portion of the campus, a short physical description of the significant portion of the campus, and a photo index that describes each of the photographic views and compositions. These will be provided along with a short report that contains a brief physical description of the significant portion of the school, a brief narrative that explains its historical significance, and a site map of the campus. The photographic views will be prepared as 8- by 10-inch, machine-printed black-and-white archival prints; the accompanying photo index and other written data will be printed on archival paper. The completed HABS-like documentation packages will be archived for public access at the California Room of the Central San Diego Public Library and the Document Library at the San Diego History Center.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 1-3 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

Chapter 2 Introduction

2.1 Background 2.1.1 San Diego Unified School District The San Diego Unified School District (District) serves more than 132,000 students in preschool through grade 12 and is the second-largest school district in California. The student population is extremely diverse, representing more than 15 ethnic groups and more than 60 languages and dialects. Since its founding on July 1, 1854, the District has grown from a small, rented school building with one teacher to its current size—more than 226 educational facilities with 13,559 full- time-equivalent employees. More than 6,000 teachers are in classrooms at the District's various educational facilities, which include 117 traditional elementary schools, nine K–8 schools, 25 traditional middle schools, 24 high schools, 49 charter schools, and 14 atypical/alternative schools.

The District is proud to be one of the top urban school districts in the United States. Its students have earned top scores on state and national tests, and its staff has also earned top scores for its leadership in areas such as technology, curriculum, neighborhood and specialty schools, career-technical education, and food services. The District’s graduates include some of the nation's top scientists, writers, and leaders as well as Hall of Fame sports stars. The mission of the District is as follows: All San Diego students will graduate with the skills, motivation, curiosity, and resilience to succeed in their choice of college and career in order to lead and participate in the society of tomorrow. Fulfillment of this mission is currently charted through the District’s Vision 2020 plan. This plan is a focused, long-term roadmap for student success, culminating in the graduation of the Class of 2020. The overarching goal of the plan is to ensure a quality educational experience for present and future students, and several of its goals emphasize the value of safe and modern school facilities in student growth and achievement. Vision 2020 sees San Diego’s schools as true neighborhood learning centers where student learning extends beyond the school site and includes multiple benefits to the surrounding neighborhoods. 2.1.2 Long-Range Facilities Master Plan and Propositions S and Z In 2008, the District updated its Long-Range Facilities Master Plan (Master Plan) and developed the Proposition S bond proposal to fund a portion of it. This plan identifies and prioritizes District-wide needs for renovation and expansion of existing facilities and for new school construction. The Master Plan update was based on a comprehensive assessment of needs and extensive outreach among District stakeholders to share findings from the assessment; discuss costs, funding sources, and priorities; and seek input. Outreach included the following:

 High School Cluster Meetings (with more than 710 participants and more than 1,400 volunteer hours by non-District staff)

 Principal Surveys (approximately 170 returned)

 Ad Hoc Task Force on the Bond (approximately 25 board-appointed volunteers; six meetings held)

 District Facilities Task Force (approximately 50 members; four meetings held)

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 2-1 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

SDUSD Chapter 2. Introduction

The majority of the District’s 200-plus sites were built 20 to 50 years ago, and half of its buildings are more than 45 years old. The Master Plan update concluded that significant facility improvements were necessary to meet current educational needs, support twenty-first-century teaching and learning, and ensure a safe, secure, and healthy environment for students and the staff.

On November 4, 2008, nearly 69% of San Diego voters passed the $2.1 billion general obligation bond measure, Proposition S, which included a list of specific projects to repair, renovate, and revitalize neighborhood schools. Proposition S extends the previous voter-approved Proposition MM tax rate ($66.70 per $100,000 assessed value of taxable property) from 2029 to 2044. Proposition S funds must be used for the projects listed in the bond language placed before the voters and cannot be used for teacher or administrative salaries. For more information on Proposition S, visit http://www.sandi.net/props/.

On November 6, 2012, San Diego voters approved Proposition Z, a $2.8 billion bond proposition that enables the District to maintain safe and productive learning environments for students during the state’s ongoing budget crisis. Undertakings allowed under Proposition Z at Audubon K–8 School would include general upgrades to existing school facilities to create a better learning environment. No buildings would be demolished or removed; however, modifications and additions would occur at the existing administration building.

Student Health, Safety, and Security. An emergency communications system would be installed, in addition to 10-foot-high security fencing and lighting around a proposed courtyard, to secure the site against vandals and intruders. As part of the project, student drop-off and pick-up areas for school buses and automobiles along the northern part of the campus would be improved to increase student safety. Improvements would involve cutting sidewalks and striping. The west elevation of the administration building would be modified to eliminate the existing open arcade that leads into the school campus to enhance security and safety.

School Accessibility and Code Compliance. Proposition S includes provisions to upgrade school sites to achieve compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Titles I and II. Non-compliant ADA ramps would be replaced, and ADA signage and a path would be installed at the proposed parking and joint-use field as part of the project. The existing parking lot on the southwestern corner of the school would be renovated to accommodate an additional 21 spaces for visitors to the joint-use field. Also, additions and modifications would occur at the existing administration building would be to secure the campus by eliminating the open layout and requiring visitors to check in prior to accessing the campus.

Interior Remodeling. The project would include remodeling restrooms and adding sink and grease traps to the kitchen area. New heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) equipment would be installed in classrooms and some portables, along with new rooftop mechanical units. Electrical upgrades would also occur as part of the proposed project.

2.2 Project Objectives Audubon K–8 School was built in 1955. The majority of the buildings, structures, and infrastructure are more than 50 years old. Prior to Propositions S and Z being placed on the ballot for consideration, District architects conducted an assessment of the Crawford High School and Mann Middle School facilities. The District coordinated with school staff members and stakeholders to refine the assessment and identify needed improvements at the schools. The review identified the

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 2-2 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

SDUSD Chapter 2. Introduction

need for renovations to provide safe and modern amenities and achieve ADA compliance. These improvements were included in Proposition S. Additional funding was approved for these facilities in accordance with Proposition Z. The improvements identified as a part of Propositions S and Z represent a general list of goals for improvements and modernization activities and therefore also contribute to the objectives of the project, which include the following:

 Improve student learning and instruction;

 Improve student health, safety, and security;

 Improve school accessibility and code compliance; and

 Repair or replace major building systems.

2.3 Notice of Preparation This environmental impact report (EIR) has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000, et seq.) and the procedures for implementation of CEQA set forth in the Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 15000, et seq. [State CEQA Guidelines]). The District is the lead agency in the preparation of this EIR, as defined by Section 15051 of the State CEQA Guidelines.

Prior to preparation of this EIR, during the early stages of the environmental review process for the project, the District prepared a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and submitted it to various public agencies and the public at large for a 30-day review period. The NOP described the project and provided notification regarding preparation of the EIR to guide the District’s determination of the scope of the EIR and the environmental issues that should be reviewed in the EIR. The District received no NOP response letters during the review period. A copy of the NOP is included in Appendix A to this EIR.

2.4 Scope of the EIR The EIR provides a detailed description of the project (Chapter 2) and a summary of all environmental review that was conducted (Chapters 3 through 8). Prior to the preparation of this EIR, the District prepared a CEQA Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Form (CEQA Checklist) for the project. The CEQA Checklist identified the environmental impacts that could occur as a result of project implementation. The CEQA Checklist, which is included in Appendix A of this EIR, considers environmental issue areas. The environmental issue areas identified in the CEQA Checklist as being potentially significant and therefore must be addressed by this EIR were cultural resources (historic) and mandatory findings of significance. Additional environmental review was conducted for these issue areas, and the results are presented in Chapters 3, 5, and 6, along with mitigation measures that the District has incorporated into the project to avoid some of the impacts or reduce them to less-than-significant levels. Significant impacts related to historic resources were determined to be significant and unavoidable after incorporation of mitigation measures because the proposed improvements would alter the original design and construction of the school’s administration building. Avoidance of this impact is not possible because of campus security and safety improvements that must be included with the project.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 2-3 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

SDUSD Chapter 2. Introduction

2.5 Intended Uses of the EIR The purpose of this document is to inform the District’s decision-making body, agencies, and members of the public about the nature of the project; the ways in which the project would affect the physical environment; and the measures that the District would implement to mitigate for the identified environmental impacts. The EIR will be used by the District’s Board of Education (Board) during the decision-making process for the project. The Board must first decide whether to certify the EIR, signifying that the document adequately complies with environmental review procedures required by CEQA, and then must use the descriptions and analysis presented in the document to make an informed decision regarding approval of the school improvements.

The modernization improvements at Audubon K–8 School would be completed over multiple years, depending on funding, logistics, and other factors. They are scheduled to begin as soon as late 2015.

2.6 Matrix of Project Approvals and Permits The environmental review process for the project involves responsible agencies that would need to grant approvals or permits for the project to be implemented. Table 2-1 lists the permits and other approvals that would be required for the project by agencies other than the District.

Table 2-1. Permits and Agency Approvals

Responsible Agency Permit/Approval Office of the Division of State Architect Compliance City of San Diego Public right-of-way permits

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 2-4 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

Chapter 3 Environmental Setting and Project Description

3.1 Environmental Setting 3.1.1 Regional Setting The proposed project would involve improvements at a K–8 school, which is situated in a residential neighborhood that includes some recreational and open space areas. Lomita Park is immediately southeast of and adjacent to the school site, and the Jamacha open space system is located farther to the north. The school is located on San Vicente Street and Bonsall Street, and regional access is generally provided by State Route (SR) 125, which is about 1 mile east of the school. 3.1.2 Location and Description of School Site Audubon K–8 School is situated on a 9.2-acre District-owned site at 8111 San Vicente Street in the city of San Diego, California. Access to the school is provided from San Vicente Street, which can be accessed from major roadways, such as Jamacha Road to the north, Cardiff Street to the east, Skyline Drive to the south, and Meadowbrook Drive to the west (Figures 3-1 and 3-2). Audubon K–8 School, which is in the Lomita Village area, serves pre-kindergarten through eight-grade students. Surrounding land uses include single-family residences to the north, west, and south; Lomita Park to the southeast; and the Jamacha open space system to the north.

The Audubon K–8 School campus includes 33 classrooms (18 permanent and 15 portable) and seven permanent office and administrative buildings on its 9.2 acres (SDUSD 2011). Student enrollment at the K–8 school during the 2013/2014 school year was 494 (SDUSD 2015). The student population is expected to increase to approximately 625 students by the 2016/2017 school year (SDUSD 2011). Existing recreational facilities include a playground and a lunch court, which are on asphalt.

Within the Audubon K–8 School campus, about 59 marked parking stalls serve the faculty and staff. About 43 parking spaces are at the southwestern corner of the school site, near the intersection of Pala Street and Bonsall Street, and an additional 16 marked parking spaces are located in the northeastern corner of the site near the intersection of Norm Street and San Vicente Street.

3.2 Project Description Proposed project actions at Audubon K–8 School include modernization improvements at student drop-off and pick-up areas, the installation of an emergency communication system, expansion of existing parking facilities, creation of a joint-use field, site fencing and security lighting, installation of air-conditioning, accessibility improvements, renovation of restrooms, replacement of kitchen fixtures and general site infrastructure, additions and modifications to the existing administration building, and performance space upgrades (Figure 3-3). All of the proposed project actions would be supported by bond funds under Propositions S and Z.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 3-1 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

SDUSD Chapter 3. Environmental Setting and Project Description

3.2.1 Modernization Improvements The proposed modernization improvements at Audubon K–8 School would include general upgrades to existing school facilities to create a better learning environment. No buildings would be demolished or removed; however, additions and modifications would occur to the existing administration building.

School Accessibility and Code Compliance. Proposition S includes provisions to upgrade school sites to achieve compliance with ADA Titles I and II. Non-compliant ADA ramps would be replaced, and ADA signage and a path would be installed at the proposed parking and joint-use field as part of the project. The existing parking lot on the southwestern corner of the school would be renovated to accommodate an additional 21 spaces for visitors to the joint-use field. Also, additions and modifications to the existing administration building would occur to secure the campus by eliminating the open layout and requiring visitors to check in prior to accessing the campus.

Interior Remodeling. The project would include remodeling restrooms and adding sink and grease traps to the kitchen area. New HVAC equipment would be installed in classrooms and some portables, along with new rooftop mechanical units. Electrical upgrades would also occur as part of the proposed project. 3.2.2 Construction Activities Construction of the project is expected to be completed in 2016. During construction of the project, construction activities would be limited to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. to comply with the City of San Diego’s noise ordinance.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 3-2 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

Tulare Inyo Kings N e v a d a

Kern

Santa C a l i f o r n i a Barbara Ventura San Bernardino

Los Angeles

Orange Riverside

San Diego

Project Site ^_

± 0 2 4 8

Miles

Source: ESRI World Map (2015). K:\San Diego\projects\SD_Unified_School_District\00134_15_Audubon_IS\mapdoc\Fig01_RegionalLocation.mxd 6/15/2015 19542 Figure 3-1 Regional Location Audubon K-8 School Modernization Project

Project Site

± 0 200 400

Feet Source: Imagery - Bing. K:\San Diego\projects\SD_Unified_School_District\00134_15_Audubon_IS\mapdoc\Fig02_ProjectVicinity.mxd 6/15/2015 19542 6/15/2015 Diego\projects\SD_Unified_School_District\00134_15_Audubon_IS\mapdoc\Fig02_ProjectVicinity.mxd K:\San Figure 3-2 Project Vicinity Audubon K-8 School Modernization Project

Source: SDUSD, 2013. K:\San Diego\projects\SD_Unified_School_District\00134_15_Audubon_IS\mapdoc (03/31/2015)

Figure 3-3 Site Plan Audubon K-8 School Modernization Project

Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis

This chapter provides an analysis of environmental effects that were found during preparation of this EIR to be significant. It also provides a description of existing conditions, CEQA impact significance criteria, an analysis of potential impacts, and the mitigation that was proposed to reduce the impacts.

The following resource area is described and analyzed in this chapter:

 Cultural Resources (Historic).

Environmental effects that were found not to be significant are discussed in Chapter 6. Cumulative effects are described in Chapter 7.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 4-1 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

Section 4.1 Cultural Resources

This section summarizes potential project impacts related to historical resources. The analysis is based on the historical resource evaluation included in the cultural resources technical report prepared by ICF International for the proposed project. That report is included as Appendix B to this document. This section presents a review of existing conditions, a summary of applicable policies and regulations related to historical resources, and an analysis of the historical resource impacts that would result from construction and operation of the project. Where feasible, mitigation measures are recommended to reduce the level of expected impact; however, as discussed below, impacts on historic resources would remain significant and unavoidable with incorporation of mitigation measures. Impacts associated with archaeological resources and paleontological resources are discussed in the initial study, provided as Appendix A, and are not further discussed in this section.

4.1 Cultural Resources 4.1.1 Existing Conditions 4.1.1.1 Background The following background discussion is a condensed version of the historic context provided in Modern San Diego Public School Development, which was produced by ICF International and ASM Affiliates for the evaluation of SDUSD school buildings and complexes. That historic context, which thoroughly references historical sources, can be consulted in Attachment 1 of Appendix B.

4.1.1.2 Pre-1933 San Diego Public School Buildings During the early twentieth century, educational trends associated with Progressive reform influenced the design of school buildings, which increasingly differed from earlier nineteenth- century schoolhouses and the larger multi-story school buildings. This paralleled the reformers’ efforts to ameliorate the worst physical features of urban tenement buildings, which were inhabited by working-class immigrants. Improving tenement conditions and school buildings was intended to strengthen the health of newcomers and youth and make them effective citizens. School architects and planners sought to improve classroom ventilation and exposure to natural light and enhance safety by fireproofing new buildings with concrete and steel construction. In contrast to the limited number of windows in older school buildings, new buildings were increasingly ventilated by rows of steel-framed awning or hopper windows that were stacked two or three high. These windows were intended to enhance comfort and reduce germs. Making schools healthier was part of the new child- centered emphasis of Progressive education, which also introduced physical education and new educational activities that were intended to develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills as well as skills in domestic arts, woodworking, metal work, and auto mechanics.

In San Diego, early twentieth-century schools included numerous large, two- or three-story, rectangular L- or U-shaped buildings that were designed in the Neo-Classical, Mission Revival, and Spanish Colonial Revival styles. None of the major buildings in which San Diego students were

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 4.1-1 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

SDUSD Chapter 4. Environmental Analysis

educated prior to 1933 stand today. The 1933 Long Beach earthquake led to passage of the Field Act (or Field Bill) and subsequent legislation that led to eventual demolition of pre-1933 school buildings.

4.1.1.3 The Great Depression and World War II After the 1920s, a decade of major economic growth for San Diego as result of federal investment in military facilities and operations, the onset of the Great Depression initiated a new period of financial hard times for San Diego schools. As unemployment rates skyrocketed and the local tax base dwindled, school officials increased class sizes and reduced teachers’ salaries. San Diego public schools and the city at large benefited from federal public works programs created by the Roosevelt administration’s New Deal. The Works Progress Administration (WPA) sponsored murals by local artists at public schools and funded a major curriculum development initiative in San Diego. Although the WPA built a substantial complex at today’s San Diego State University, the extent of New Deal investment in San Diego public school construction remains unclear. It appears that the federal government invested far more money in San Diego school development during World War II as the city’s population swelled with military personnel and defense workers. As a result of rapid growth during World War II, SDUSD became the nation’s first school district to design and build portable classrooms. In addition, the federal government constructed 13 new schools in the San Diego area. Several of these new schools served the new defense-worker community of Linda Vista, the largest housing development the federal government had ever created.

During the 1930s and early 1940s, the Moderne style or styles had the greatest influence on public school architecture in San Diego and elsewhere. These include Art Moderne, Streamline Moderne, and PWA Moderne (named for the restrained classicism of Moderne buildings created under the auspices of the Public Works Administration). Streamline Moderne departed from Art Deco’s geometrically ornate surfaces, vertical emphasis, and references to ancient architecture. Streamline Moderne had a more horizontal emphasis and made visual references not to historical architecture but rather to transportation technology, such as airplanes, trains, and ships. Streamline Moderne buildings incorporated asymmetrical massing, flat roofs, smooth wall surfaces, curving corners, glass-block and steel-framed windows, and horizontal string courses. In contrast to Streamline Moderne, PWA Moderne buildings often retained stripped-down classicism or other restrained historical references. PWA Moderne school buildings typically incorporated recessed and often centered entries that were framed by column pilasters or quoin moldings, sometimes with pediments, as well as large rectangular window openings, fluted patterns that were borrowed from Art Deco, and sometimes curved corners that were borrowed from Streamline Moderne.

Beyond San Diego, the cutting-edge Modernism of the International style shaped the design of several schools that would become highly influential after World War II. Advocates of International- style architecture turned away from traditional ornamentation and historical references and instead sought to create building forms that honestly expressed their function and structure. International- style buildings were horizontally oriented, sometimes box shaped, and sometimes asymmetrically massed with cubic forms. They generally featured flat roofs with low parapets or overhanging cantilevered slabs, square corners, expansive bands of steel-frame windows, and smooth wall surfaces of concrete, brick, stucco, or steel. One of California’s earliest International-style architects, Richard Neutra, employed the style in his design of a major addition to Corona Avenue School in Los Angeles, completed in 1935. Neutra’s addition featured large L-shaped classrooms with sliding full-length glass doors that opened to a courtyard and served both to maximize natural light and facilitate an indoor-outdoor curriculum. Another important International-style school, Crow Island

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 4.1-2 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

SDUSD Chapter 4. Environmental Analysis

School, was completed in 1940 in Winnetka Illinois. This school was designed by Eliel and Eero Saarinen, Lawrence B. Perkins, E. Todd Wheeler, and Philip Will Jr. This school’s plan consisted of a central common building and low-slung, single-story wings with central corridors and projecting L-shaped classrooms. The classrooms incorporated large banks of steel-framed windows, including corner windows, and provided immediate access to courtyard spaces, which, similar to Neutra’s Corona Avenue School addition, served to intermingle indoor and outdoor space. After World War II, Modernist architecture, and its intermingling of indoor and outdoor space, would lead to the creation of new types of school designs in San Diego and elsewhere.

4.1.1.4 Post–World War II San Diego Public Schools A San Diego population that stood at 203,341 in 1940, just prior to World War II, grew to 334,387 by 1950. Military expansion, growth in the defense industry, and the baby boom all contributed to this and subsequent population growth. Unprecedented school development was required to accommodate this growth. Prior to and during World War II, most San Diego schools were developed to serve streetcar suburbs. During the 1950s, however, the construction of new public school complexes took place mainly in San Diego’s new automobile suburbs, which were farther from the city’s urban core. These include the Bay Park, Clairemont, Kearny Mesa, Serra Mesa, and the Encanto neighborhoods as well as the College and Fairmont areas.

After World War II, the International style became the architecture of institutional authority in the United States. During the immediate post-war years, the style shaped public school design in San Diego and elsewhere. However, San Diego school architects soon began intermingling the International style with newer architectural trends to produce school designs that are best categorized as Mid-Century Modern. Compared with the large multi-story, sometimes monumental buildings that dominated most pre–World War II public schools and kept students indoors most of the day, the post-war school complexes that developed in the automobile suburbs would have dramatically different plans and spatial configurations. The new schools would embody the kind of indoor-outdoor planning pioneered in the designs of influential pre–World War II examples, such as the Corona Avenue School addition and Crow Island School. The new schools typically had spread-out plans with rows of low-rise classroom buildings, open circulation corridors that were sheltered by overhanging roofs or canopies, and extensive outdoor landscaped areas between buildings and circulation corridors. Buildings were increasingly constructed with concrete slab foundations, steel frames, and large expanses of window glass, especially in classroom buildings. Notable architects who designed post-war San Diego public schools in Modernist idioms included long-established figures such as William Templeton Johnson and Sam Hamill as well as younger architects such as Lloyd Ruocco, Frank Hope Jr., and Clyde Hufbauer. Over time, the flat roofs that were typical of the International style gradually gave way to shed roofs and bold V-shaped and butterfly roofs. The indoor-outdoor designs of post-war schools increased the importance of landscaping, and in 1947, SDUSD hired its first full-time landscape architect, Jane Minshall, who designed campus plantings, circulation features, and playgrounds until her retirement in the 1970s.

4.1.1.5 Audubon K–8 School Historic Inventory Audubon K–8 School occupies an approximate 9.2-acre property that fronts San Vicente Street and is bordered on the west by Bonsall Street. Landscape features in the form of lawns, trees, and concrete walkways separate the school buildings from both streets. The school’s original 1955 buildings form an L-shaped complex, the northwest corner of which is situated near the corner of

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 4.1-3 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

SDUSD Chapter 4. Environmental Analysis

San Vicente and Bonsall Streets. The campus also includes two permanent buildings that were constructed after 1955 and numerous portable buildings. The 1955 buildings include Building A, which incorporates an administration wing, a classroom, a mechanical room, an auditorium- cafeteria, and a kitchen; Buildings B, C, and D, which contain classrooms and are aligned parallel to Bonsall Street; and the kindergarten building, which is located immediately east of Building A. These five buildings are unified in that they were designed together by a single architect to form a cohesive Mid-Century Modern school complex.

Building A consists of multiple rectilinear volumes that are arranged in an irregular plan. Slightly textured stucco covers most of the building’s exterior wall surfaces. The building’s administration wing projects northward at the west end of the plan and features an extremely low-pitched shed roof with broadly overhanging eaves and canted fascia as well as original steel, fixed, awning, or hopper windows that are arranged in large square-shaped banks or ribbons that include wrapping corner windows. The administration wing’s main office entry at the west elevation is secured by an institutional-grade door with glazing and features a transom and fixed wood-framed sidelights on its north side. An upper ribbon of original steel-frame windows with hopper units extends to the south from the entry. One of the school’s most distinctive features is an arcade that marks the main entrance to the campus at Building A’s west elevation, near the main office. From there, a walkway extends south along the west elevation under an attached sheltering canopy with canted fascia and stucco-clad rectangular slab “column” supports at the outer edges. This arrangement continues west at a right angle to the north elevation of Building D.

Building A’s administration wing is connected to a rectilinear volume that contains a classroom and a mechanical room with a flat roof and a large rectangular bank of original steel awning and fixed windows at the north elevation. East of the classroom and mechanical room, Building A’s largest volume contains the auditorium-cafeteria, which has a flat roof with a low parapet and a small projection at the west end that is topped with a steel pipe chimney. A small utility addition that has been secured by a non-original fence extends west from the auditorium-cafeteria volume at the north elevation near the large bank of classroom windows. A lengthy, moderately projecting cantilevered overhang runs along the north elevation of the auditorium-cafeteria volume over manicured hedges, reinforcing the building’s horizontal emphasis at its most vertically prominent volume. The building’s easternmost one-story rectangular volume, which projects east and slightly north from the auditorium-cafeteria volume, contains the school’s kitchen. A canted canopy projection with canted fascia shelters an entry at the east end of the auditorium-cafeteria along the north elevation. Underneath the east end of this canopy is a wedge-shaped wall projection with a decorative grid pattern of scored plaster and an entry that is secured by a single-leaf institutional- grade door. The building’s east elevation at the kitchen has multiple entries and original steel-frame windows, some of which are awning windows. A projecting canopy with steel pipe columns shelters the windows and entries across the entire south elevation, which faces an expansive asphalt-paved playground and a non-original lunch shelter. Entries across the building are secured by two-leaf institutional-grade doors.

Buildings B, C, and D contain classrooms and are designed similarly. They have rectangular plans, slightly textured stucco cladding, and low-pitched shed roofs that slope downward to the east. At the east elevations, eaves with canted fascia project broadly to shelter classroom entries, which are secured by institutional-grade doors, most with square offset vision lights, as well as ribbons of original steel-frame windows that are positioned at the tops of the walls. The west elevations feature exceptionally large continuous banks of original rectangular steel-frame windows, which extend across interior classroom-partitioning transverse walls. A louvered shade, which is affixed to

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 4.1-4 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

SDUSD Chapter 4. Environmental Analysis

Building D’s west roof overhang to block sunlight from classrooms windows, does not appear to be original but may have been installed soon after the building was constructed. These buildings are attached by circulation canopies and a breezeway between Buildings B and C.

The kindergarten building is located immediately east of Building A. It has an L-shaped plan, slightly textured stucco wall surfaces, and shed roofs that slope downward toward the building’s front (north) elevation with minimal pitch. The eaves have canted edges and overhang moderately at all elevations, except the north elevation of the east wing and the west elevation of the north wing where they project broadly to shelter entries with institutional-grade doors that open to the kindergarten play area on the north side of the building. The building features original steel-frame ribbon windows and large rectangular or square banks of steel-frame windows, some of which appear to be awning units. The large rectangular window bank at the north elevation of the north wing is flanked by two perpendicularly projecting wall elements that may serve as “baffle walls” to block sunlight at certain angles.

The other buildings on the campus are either portable units or permanent buildings that have been designed in ways that depart from the architecture of the original 1955 complex. East of the kindergarten building is a classroom addition that was constructed in 1957. Built in 2004, the school’s current library building is situated immediately southeast of Building C. Rows of portable buildings, which contain 17 classrooms and are aligned differently from the portables that were present at the site in 1955, are located west and south of Building C and east of the library. For a more detailed physical description of the campus and photographs that illustrate the architectural details, see Appendix B. 4.1.2 Impact Significance Criteria The following significance criteria for evaluation of cultural resources are based on State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. These provide the basis for determining the significance of impacts associated with cultural resources that would result from implementation of the proposed project.

The project would have a significant impact on cultural resources if it would result in the following: 1. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, as defined by Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 2. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource, pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 3. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or a unique geological feature. 4. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

As noted above, impacts on archaeological, paleontological, and human remains were evaluated and dismissed in the initial study, provided as Appendix A. As such, impacts related to thresholds 2, 3, and 4, above, are not discussed below. The analysis below pertains to threshold 1 and is concerned only with potential impacts on historical resources.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 4.1-5 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

SDUSD Chapter 4. Environmental Analysis

4.1.2.1 Clarification of Threshold Used for Historic Resources CEQA requires public agencies to evaluate the implications of their project(s) on the environment and includes significance historical resources as part of the environment. According to CEQA, a project that causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource or a unique archaeological resource has a significant effect on the environment (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, PRC Section 21083.2).

CEQA defines a substantial adverse change as:

 Physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of the historical resource would be materially impaired; or

 Demolition or material alteration of the physical characteristics that convey the resource’s historical significance and justify its designation as a historical resource.

Public agencies must treat any cultural resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant (Title 14, CCR, Section 15064.5). A historic resource is considered significant if it meets the definition of historical resource or unique archaeological resource.

The term historical resource includes, but is not limited to, any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that is historically or archaeologically significant or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California (PRC Section 5020.1(j)). Historical resources may be designated as such through three different processes: 1. Official designation or recognition by a local government pursuant to local ordinance or resolution (PRC Section 5020.1(k)), 2. A local survey conducted pursuant to PRC Section 5024.1(g), or 3. Listing in or eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (PRC Section 5024.1(d)(1))

The process for identifying historical resources is typically accomplished by applying the criteria for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (Title 14, CCR, Section 4852), which states that a historical resource must be significant at the local, state, or national level under one or more of the following four criteria: 1. The resource is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; 2. The resource is associated with the lives of persons who were important in our past; 3. The resource embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or 4. The resource has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information that is important in prehistory or history.

To be considered a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA, the resource must also have integrity, which is the authenticity of the resource’s physical identity, as evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 4.1-6 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

SDUSD Chapter 4. Environmental Analysis

Resources, therefore, must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and convey the reasons for their significance. Integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling,, and association. It must also be judged with reference to the particular criteria under which a resource is considered eligible for listing in the CRHR (Title 14, CCR, Section 4852(c)).

Bond-funded improvements of active SDUSD schools, including whole-site modernization, are not subject to approval by the City of San Diego Historical Resources Board. Consequently, the significance criteria outlined in the Historical Resources Guidelines of the City of San Diego’s Land Development Manual are not applied herein, and Audubon K–8 School is not evaluated for local designation. 4.1.3 Impact Analysis Audubon K–8 School’s original buildings (Buildings A, B, C, D and the kindergarten building) appear to meet the criteria for listing in the CRHR as part of a historic Mid-Century Modern school complex. None the other buildings on campus appear to qualify for CRHR listing individually or as contributors to the historic 1955 portion of the school.

The following section summarizes the significance evaluation from the cultural resources technical study for the project, which is available for consultation in Appendix B.

The original portion of Audubon K–8 School was designed by San Diego master architect Samuel W. Hamill in 1954. Chamco Construction Company completed the school’s construction in January 1955. Later that year, SDUSD moved to provide additional permanent classrooms at Audubon and other schools with a $5 million bond sale. Architect J. Thomas Erchul of San Diego completed standardized plans for construction of classroom additions at five schools, including Audubon. Audubon’s classroom addition building was completed in 1957. The school’s current library building was constructed in 2004.

Although the creation of Audubon K–8 School was associated with rapid post–World War II suburban growth in San Diego, such an association is too commonplace to confer significance on the campus. Numerous public school complexes were designed and constructed in San Diego after World War II. Research has not revealed any evidence that Audubon K–8 School was associated with a discrete event or a discernible pattern of events that were important to local, state, or national history, nor has research revealed any evidence that Audubon K–8 School was associated with the work of a historically important individual during the 1950s and 1960s. Consequently, the school does not appear to meet Criterion 1 or 2 for listing in the CRHR. The school is, however, associated with a historically important San Diego-area architect: Samuel W. Hamill. For more details on Hamill’s career and his influence locally, see Appendix B.

Audubon K–8 School’s original 1955 complex (Buildings A, B, C, D, and the kindergarten building) appears to be eligible for listing in the CRHR under Criterion 3 at the local level of significance as a noteworthy example of Samuel W. Hamill’s late-career work in the Modernist idiom and as an excellent example of the Mid-Century Modern school architecture and planning. Consequently, the school’s original 1955 complex appears to be a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. The period of significance is 1955, the year of construction of the original complex.

Several features and factors distinguish Audubon K–8 School from other 1950s and early 1960s San Diego public schools. Although circulation canopies with steel pipe-column supports are typical

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 4.1-7 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

SDUSD Chapter 4. Environmental Analysis

elements of 1950s schools in San Diego and elsewhere, Audubon’s arcade arrangement of sheltering canopies with rectangular slab supports at the main campus entry is a distinctive element of the school’s design. It may represent a Modernist variation on the arcades of Spanish Colonial Revival architecture, which Hamill specialized in during the pre–World War II period. The classroom buildings’ exceptionally large, continuous windows along the west elevations represent a distinctive Mid-Century Modern feature. Audubon K–8 School’s original 1955 complex retains a higher degree of historical integrity overall than most San Diego–area campuses from that period.

In addition to the entry arcade and exceptionally large west-elevation classroom windows, Audubon K–8 School’s character-defining features include the existing building plans and building envelopes (save the addition at the north elevation of Building A); existing roofs and roof overhangs; all cantilevered or otherwise-attached canopy elements and walkway canopy shelters, including the rectangular slab supports along the main campus entry arcade and existing steel pipe-column supports; slightly textured stucco exterior wall surfaces and the grid-scored surface of the wedge projection under the canted canopy near the east end of Building A’s north elevation; all existing window openings and original steel- or wood-frame windows; existing original door openings and the glazed entry door to the main office of Building A’s administration wing (replacement institutional-grade doors elsewhere would not significantly diminish integrity); existing concrete walkways; existing landscaped areas and the existing “open” quality of the relationships between landscaped areas and buildings; the open blacktop play area south and east of the L-shaped original complex; and the existing easy access to the blacktop play areas from contributing buildings.

Although alterations have somewhat diminished the 1955 school complex’s historical integrity, the complex continues to convey its significance. Unlike many other San Diego schools of the era that have received new buildings or major additions to historic-period buildings within core areas of their original complexes, Audubon’s non-original 1957 classroom addition, 2004 library building, and portable buildings are located at the northeast and southwest peripheries of the original L-shaped 1955 complex. They do not impinge visually on historic feeling and setting from most vantage points within the permanent buildings of the 1955 complex. The 1955 complex itself has undergone several physical alterations. Although not visible from every vantage point, non-original air-conditioning units atop building roofs have undermined the integrity of their sleek, low-slung design and thereby reduced integrity of feeling and setting. The small utility addition and fence projecting west from Building A’s auditorium-cafeteria volume at the north (front) elevation represent a slight alteration to the building’s plan. However, they blend in well and have not heavily impinged upon original architectural features. A non-original disability ramp and railing leading to the south side of Building A along the west elevation of Building B represent slight exterior modifications. The non-original lunch shelter south of Building A’s auditorium-cafeteria and kitchen diminishes integrity of feeling and setting in that area. Finally, consultation of original as-built plans indicates that the louvered shade at the west elevation of Building D may not be original, but it was most likely installed soon after 1955. Despite these limited alterations, and given the abundance of original windows and design elements, the 1955 portion of Audubon K–8 School retains a much higher degree of historical integrity than most San Diego–area schools that date back to the 1950s.

The proposed project would not result in the demolition any of the buildings within the significant 1955 portion of Audubon K–8 School. However, the project would result in alterations to some of the 1955 school complex’s exterior character-defining features. Such alterations would include the installation of an HVAC unit atop the administration wing of Building A (where no HVAC unit is currently present); installation of steel security fencing and new paving on the north side of Building A, at the western portion of the auditorium-cafeteria volume’s north elevation; an addition to the

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 4.1-8 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

SDUSD Chapter 4. Environmental Analysis

west elevation of Building A’s administration wing; and the creation of a new secured courtyard area west of the addition. The courtyard perimeter would incorporate new westerly and northerly steel security fencing under steel overhead trellises, new concrete perimeter walkways, new concrete walkways and paving within the courtyard, and concrete mow curbs. ADA upgrades to the existing non-compliant ADA ramp access at the at the west end of the kindergarten building’s south elevation and to the bathroom at the north end of Building A’s east elevation would not alter character-defining features.

The school continues to convey its significance despite the installation of non-original HVAC roof units, which are visible from some vantage points and have diminished the integrity of design and feeling by altering the appearance of roof lines from those vantage points. The HVAC unit to be installed atop the roof of Building A’s administration wing would be placed so as to minimize its visibility as much as possible. Overall, the original, significant 1955 portion of the school would continue to convey its significance despite these alterations.

The security fencing and new courtyard at the north side of Building A, along the west portion of the auditorium-cafeteria volume, would introduce non-original structural elements that would alter the current visual relationship between the building, the existing concrete walkway, and the existing landscaping. However, the security fencing and courtyard elements will incorporate design features that will aesthetically harmonize new built-environment elements with existing character-defining features and thereby reduce the impact of the new elements in this sensitive area. The trellis of the new courtyard will include canted edge beams that will match the canted fascia of the circulation canopies at the existing main entry arcade and other places on the campus. The security fencing will integrate trellis supports with stucco-covered pilasters. These will form rectangular slab-like elements that will harmonize visually with the existing arcade’s rectangular slab columns, which will be preserved in place under the circulation canopy that extends from the administration wing of Building A west to the north side of Building D. Installation of the steel security fencing at this location would not entail demolition of building elements. By including design elements that would harmonize with existing character-defining architectural features, the security fencing and associated trellis would not amount to a substantial alteration; they would result in slight diminishment of integrity of design, materials, and feeling at the west side of Building A’s administration wing, which is entirely visible from San Vicente Street. However, the project would also introduce an addition to the west elevation of Building A’s administration wing, as well as new security fencing and paving at the north side of Building A’s cafeteria/auditorium volume. The sum of these alterations at the west and north sides of Building A would substantially diminish the historical integrity of design, materials, and feeling at these portions of the original 1955 campus, which are highly visible from adjacent streets. Other elements of the proposed project would not substantially alter character-defining features or reduce integrity. Hence other portions of the campus would continue to convey its significance under CRHR Criterion 3.

The project elements that, together, would substantially reduce the historical integrity of the school are the alterations to the main campus entrance area at the west elevation of Building A (administration wing) and the existing entry arcade, and alterations to the north side of Building A’s cafeteria/auditorium volume. These include the proposed addition to the west elevation of Building A, the new entry courtyard with security fencing, overhead trellises, concrete walkways, and mow curbs at the west side of Building A, and the new security fencing and paving at the north side of Building A’s cafeteria/auditorium volume. With implementation of the project, these proposed modifications to the school site would result in a significant impact on a historical resource, and

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 4.1-9 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

SDUSD Chapter 4. Environmental Analysis

mitigation would be required to reduce impacts; however, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

4.1.3.1 Significant Impacts Impact CR-1: Given its design, the proposed project would result in a substantial adverse change to a historical resource by altering some of its character-defining features and thereby substantially diminishing its historical integrity. The impact on a historical resource, associated with implementation of the proposed modernization improvements, would be considered a significant impact of the project.

4.1.3.2 Mitigation Measures

CR-MM CUL-1: HABS-like Documentation of Audubon K–8 School

SDUSD will arrange for the preparation of historical resource documentation of the significant 1955 portion of Audubon K–8 School (Buildings A, B, C, and D, the kindergarten building, and associated landscape elements). This documentation will be modeled on the National Park Service’s Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) program and prepared along the lines of a HABS Level III treatment. This will include large-format black-and-white photographs that provide exterior views of the significant portion of the campus, a short physical description of the significant portion of the campus, and a photo index that describes each of the photographic views and compositions. These will be provided along with a short report that contains a brief physical description of the significant portion of the school, a brief narrative that explains its historical significance, and a site map of the campus. The photographic views will be prepared as 8- by 10-inch, machine-printed black-and-white archival prints; the accompanying photo index and other written data will be printed on archival paper. The completed HABS-like documentation packages will be archived for public access at the California Room of the Central San Diego Public Library and the Document Library at the San Diego History Center.

4.1.3.3 Significance of Impacts after Mitigation The proposed project’s impact on the significance of a historical resource, as defined in Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines, would remain significant and unavoidable with mitigation incorporated because of the additions/modifications at the school’s administration building. The proposed additions/modifications at the administration building are necessary to improve site security and cannot be avoided. Although incorporation of CR-MM CUL-1 would reduce impacts associated with the project, impacts would not be reduced to a level below significance. Permanent additions/modifications to the administration building would result in a significant and unavoidable impact.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 4.1-10 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

Chapter 5 Growth Inducement

The proposed project would result in the construction of school building facilities from funding that was approved under Propositions S and Z for school improvements. All proposed actions at Audubon K–8 School are intended to improve and upgrade the existing campus. They would not result in new or expanded classrooms, the expansion of the existing campus boundaries, growth in school enrollment, or any other type of expansion. As such, the proposed Proposition S and Z improvements would not be considered to be growth inducing.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 5-1 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

Chapter 6 Environmental Effects Found Not to Be Significant

This chapter discusses environmental issue areas that were found not to be significant during preparation of the initial study (Appendix A).

6.1 Aesthetic Resources The project site is in an urbanized area that does not feature scenic views or contain other scenic resources. The site is dominated mostly by residential development. There are no identified scenic vistas or specific viewpoints in the areas surrounding the project site, as identified in the Skyline- Paradise Hills Community Plan (part of the City of San Diego General Plan), and there are no public viewing areas where residents would have prolonged views of scenic resources. Impacts are not anticipated to occur.

There are no scenic highways in the vicinity of the proposed project (California Department of Transportation 2013). Officially designated State Scenic Highways within the city and county of San Diego include portions of SR-163 and SR-125, neither of which is in the vicinity of the project site. Although SR-125 occurs about 1 mile east of the project area, the designated portion of the highway is more than 2.5 miles north of Audubon K–8 School. Views from the designated portion would not be affected by the proposed project. Furthermore, the project site is relatively flat and surrounded by urban environment. There are no other scenic resources, including trees and rock outcroppings, within or adjacent to the project area. Therefore, there are no potential impacts related to scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway, and no impact would occur.

The proposed project is not anticipated to degrade the existing visual character or quality of Audubon K–8 School or the surrounding residential neighborhoods substantially. Visual changes associated with the project would be associated mostly with the proposed additions and modifications at the administration building, expansion of the courtyard, and fencing improvements. The administration building would be modified to include an addition to the administration wing, and the associated courtyard would include new 10-foot-tall western- and northern-perimeter steel security fencing, overhead trellises, concrete walkways, and mow curbs. The trellis would include canted-edge beams that would match the canted fascia of the circulation canopies at the existing main entry arcade and other places on the campus. The security fencing would integrate trellis supports with stucco-covered “pilasters” to form rectangular slab-like elements that would harmonize visually with the existing arcade’s rectangular slab columns, which would be preserved in place under the circulation canopy. These design elements would help reduce impacts on the character-defining features of the original 1955 complex. As a result, the project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character of the school site and the surrounding residential neighborhood. The impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed project would include the installation of security lighting throughout the campus. However, because the light would be downcast and used to illuminate the sides of buildings (as opposed to a recreational field), minimal spillover into adjacent properties and roadways would occur. Therefore, the introduction of security lighting is not anticipated to affect daytime or nighttime views in the area adversely. Impacts would remain less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 6-1 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

SDUSD Chapter 6. Environmental Effects Found Not to Be Significant

6.2 Agricultural Resources Implementation of the school improvements would have no impact on agricultural or forestry resources. This school property is located in a densely urbanized area where there are no farmlands or forestry resources. According to the California Department of Conservation’s 2010 San Diego County Important Farmland map (California Department of Conservation 2010), the project site is classified as “urban and built-up land,” which does not contain any agricultural uses or areas that have been designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Furthermore, there are no Williamson Act contracts or forestlands in the project vicinity (California Department of Conservation 2013). Therefore, there would be no impact.

6.3 Air Quality The project site is in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), which is contiguous with San Diego County. The San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDCAPCD) is required, pursuant to the federal and state Clean Air Acts, to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the SDAB is in nonattainment. The SDAB is currently classified as a nonattainment area for the federal 8-hour ozone (O3) standard (i.e., the 2008 standard of 0.075 parts per million) and a maintenance area for both the 1997 8-hour O3 standard of 0.08 parts per million and the federal carbon monoxide (CO) standard. In addition, the SDAB is classified as a nonattainment area for state O3, particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), and particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM10) standards (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA} 2015; California Air Resources Board [CARB] 2014).

Government agencies are required to prepare plans that demonstrate how a designated nonattainment area will meet the state and federal air quality standards by the attainment dates. The San Diego Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) is the applicable air quality plan for improving air quality in the region and attaining federal and state air quality standards. The RAQS relies on information from CARB and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), including growth projections for the county, which are based in part on information from local general plans. In general, development projects that are consistent with the land use designations and growth anticipated by the local general plan and SANDAG are consistent with the RAQS.

Implementation of the project would involve renovations to improve interior and exterior portions of Audubon K–8 School and construction of a joint-use field. The project would not result in any increase in student capacity at the school and would not involve any temporary relocation of students during construction. Project construction would comply with SDCAPCD rules and regulations, including Rules 50, 51, and 55, which forbid visible emissions, forbid nuisance activities, and require fugitive dust control measures, respectively. The project would not change the current land use, and because it would not increase the student population, there would be no increase in the number of motor vehicle trips to the project site. As such, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any applicable air quality plan.

The proposed modernization improvements would result in emissions as a result of fugitive dust from ground disturbance, exhaust from construction vehicles, exhaust and road dust from employees’ vehicles, material deliveries and haul truck travel, and offgassing from any paving and architectural coating activities. Emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific type of construction activity occurring, and, for fugitive dust, prevailing weather conditions. Emissions resulting from the modernization improvements are expected to be well

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 6-2 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

SDUSD Chapter 6. Environmental Effects Found Not to Be Significant

below the applicable SDCAPCD Air Quality Impact Analysis trigger levels for criteria pollutants because construction would be short term and minimal and would not involve a substantial amount of work during a single day. As a result, it is unlikely that the project’s construction emissions levels would exceed any of the Air Quality Impact Analysis trigger levels. Therefore, construction of the project would not result in an impact on air quality because emissions are not expected to exceed the applicable SDCAPCD air quality standards or contribute to existing air quality violations. The project would be required to comply with SDCAPCD rules and regulations, including Rules 50, 51, and 55, as described above. Additionally, the project would not result in any increase in student capacity. Therefore, there would be no long-term operational changes. Operational impacts would be less than significant.

Proposed project activities would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants in a nonattainment region. The project site is in the SDAB, which is classified as a nonattainment area for certain federal- and state-designated criteria pollutants, including O3, PM10, and PM2.5. As discussed above, the project would not increase operations or capacity at the existing school. Therefore, operational impacts would not occur. Also, emissions from construction would be temporary and localized. The project would comply with all required SDCAPCD emissions and fugitive dust measures. Compliance with these measures would ensure that the cumulative contribution of criteria pollutants during construction would be less than significant.

The proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Sensitive receptors are facilities and structures where people live or spend considerable amounts of time, including retirement homes, residences, schools, playgrounds, child care centers, and athletic facilities. The proposed project is near residences, and the site itself is an existing school facility, which is considered a sensitive receptor. The nearest off-site receptor locations are the residences that surround the project site. Construction would be short term and would occur over a timeframe of several months. This is significantly shorter than the 70-year exposure period that is typically associated with chronic cancer health risks. Accordingly, construction of the project is not anticipated to result in an elevated cancer risk to exposed sensitive receptors. Once the project is operational, emissions would not increase compared with existing conditions. Therefore, emissions would be minimal, and compliance with all SDCAPCD rules would ensure that nearby sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations. Consequently, impacts would be less than significant.

Project-related odor emissions would be minimal and would not affect a substantial number of people. During construction, emissions from construction equipment may be evident in the immediate area on a temporary basis. Potential sources of odors during construction include architectural coating and asphalt paving activities. Additionally, material deliveries and hauling by heavy-duty trucks could create an occasional “whiff” of diesel exhaust for nearby receptors. These odors would not affect a substantial number of people because the scale of construction would be small. Standard operation of the school would not produce objectionable odors, and there would be no permanent impacts. Impacts for this issue would be less than significant.

6.4 Biological Resources Implementation of the proposed project would involve removal of an ornamental tree internal to the campus but would not affect sensitive biological resources. The project site is developed as a K–8 school and located in an established, densely built-out area. No significant biological resources are

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 6-3 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

SDUSD Chapter 6. Environmental Effects Found Not to Be Significant

on-site, including habitats or wildlife corridors. Project construction would not be near any sensitive vegetation community or wildlife corridor; all construction activities would be conducted within the existing campus, which is surrounded by residential development and major roads. The nearest identified biological resource is more than 6.8 miles southeast of the project site. This area includes land around Otay Lakes that has been identified under the City of San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan as Cornerstone Lands that contain coastal sage scrub (City of San Diego 1997). All project construction would occur within the existing campus and far from this sensitive vegetation community. Therefore, impacts on biological resources would be less than significant.

The tree to be removed provides potentially suitable nesting habitat for migratory birds and raptors that are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code, which prohibit the take or destruction of migratory birds/raptors, their nests, and/or eggs. Impacts on nesting birds that are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and similar provisions of the California Fish and Game Code could occur if the tree were to be removed during the breeding season (February 1 through August 15). These impacts can be avoided by removing the tree outside of the breeding season and before other construction activities occur. If the tree is proposed to be removed during the breeding season, a pre-construction survey must be conducted to determine if any protected birds are nesting within or immediately adjacent to any vegetation within the impact areas. A qualified biologist would be required to conduct a survey of all vegetation within an approximate 200-foot area surrounding the proposed construction footprint to identify nests or nesting activity. The survey would take place no more than 3 days prior to commencing tree removal. If a nest is found, the tree would not be removed until the adults are no longer using it or the young have fledged. Avoiding impacts on occupied nests would ensure that the project would not result in impacts on nesting birds.

Potential impacts on sensitive habitat or federally protected wetlands would not occur because the project site is developed and does not contain any suitable wildlife habitat or wetland areas that could be affected. Furthermore, because the existing school site is within a suburban residential neighborhood, the site would not substantially interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. The Jamacha Open Space system north of the project site may provide an area for some wildlife movement; however, project actions would not affect the ability of this area to provide wildlife corridor movement. Impacts would be less than significant. Implementation of the proposed project would not otherwise conflict with local ordinances pertaining to biological resources, and the project site is not within the jurisdiction of an adopted habitat conservation plan. Impacts would remain less than significant.

6.5 Cultural Resources A records search was performed for the Audubon K–8 School site. This included a review of records at the South Coast Information Center to identify previously recorded archaeological sites within the record search limits, previously conducted cultural resource studies, historical maps of the project site and surrounding area, and copies of pertinent site record forms. The results of the records search indicate that the potential for historic and prehistoric archaeology at the property is low. Impacts are considered to be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 6-4 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

SDUSD Chapter 6. Environmental Effects Found Not to Be Significant

Soils at the project site are part of the Otay Formation and considered highly sensitive paleontological resources; however, because project-related construction activities are not anticipated to extend deep enough to result in a potentially significant impact, impacts are considered to be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. According to the City of San Diego thresholds for potential paleontological impacts, construction activities that occur in areas that have been rated as highly sensitive and do not disturb more than 1,000 cubic yards and extend deeper than 10 feet below the surface result in less-than-significant impacts and do not require monitoring. According to plans provided by the District, the proposed construction activities would not occur more than 10 feet below the surface. As such, impacts are expected to be less than significant. No mitigation would be required.

The Audubon K–8 School site is not a formal cemetery and is not located near a formal cemetery. The project vicinity is fully developed, and there is no record of human remains being identified during development of the area. The site is not known to be located on a burial ground. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the proposed project would disturb any human remains during construction. Should human remains be uncovered during construction, as specified by State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, no further disturbance would occur until the county coroner makes the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If such a discovery occurs, excavation or construction would halt in the area of the discovery, the area would be protected, and consultation and treatment would occur as prescribed by law. If the county coroner recognizes the remains to be Native American, he or she would contact the Native American Heritage Commission, which would appoint a Most Likely Descendant. Additionally, if the bones are determined to be Native American, a plan would be developed regarding the treatment of human remains and associated burial objects. This plan would be implemented under the direction of the Most Likely Descendant. Impacts are anticipated to be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

6.6 Geology and Soils Impacts involving the exposure of people or structures to potential geologic hazards would not be significant. The project site is in a seismically active region, and several known earthquake faults occur in the vicinity. However, no known active faults exist beneath the school site (City of San Diego 2008). Additionally, the project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (City of San Diego 2008). Construction and design of the proposed project elements would comply with all seismic safety requirements, including the Title 24 standards of the 2013 California Building Code, which is based on the 2012 International Building Code. Conformance with all applicable seismic safety requirements would minimize seismic ground-shaking effects in the event of a major earthquake and ensure that potential seismic or geologic hazard impacts would not be significant.

The project site is in a seismically active region where the potential for seismic hazards could exist. However, all school improvements would occur within the existing school property, which has a low potential for ground failure because the site has been graded and developed. In addition, the design and construction of all project elements would comply with the applicable seismic safety requirements to minimize seismic ground-shaking effects and ensure that potential seismic or geologic hazard impacts would not be significant.

Implementation of the proposed school improvements, including creation of the joint-use field, would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Soils under the entirety of the campus are classified as Urban Land (U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] 2015). These have been

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 6-5 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

SDUSD Chapter 6. Environmental Effects Found Not to Be Significant

altered through cut-and-fill operations for development and have low erodibility within the development areas (USDA 1973). Erosion potential in urban lands is considered relatively low. All construction activities would occur within the existing developed campus and, therefore, would not result in substantial soil erosion. In addition, the site is relatively level, limiting the opportunity for rapid stormwater runoff, which would exacerbate erosion potential. Impacts would, therefore, be less than significant.

Significant impacts associated with unstable soil, including expansive soils, on- or off-site lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse are not anticipated to occur. The terrain of the project site and surrounding area is currently developed, relatively level, and considered to have neutral or favorable geologic structure (City of San Diego 2008). Soils that underlie the site are classified as Las Flores-Urban land complex where the likelihood of liquefaction is low to moderate, considering the moderate quantity of sand in these soils (USDA 2012). In addition, the San Diego County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies the project site as an area with no liquefaction risks (County of San Diego 2010). Also, because of previous on-site grading activities, the potential for near-surface expansive soils at the project site is considered low. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Implementation of the project would not result in any impacts regarding inadequate soils for supporting septic systems. Audubon K–8 School uses the existing sewer system for the disposal of wastewater and would not use septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, there would be no impact.

6.7 Greenhouse Gases California’s Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, codified the state’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions target by requiring the state’s global warming emissions to be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. The State CEQA Guidelines do not prescribe a particular threshold of significance or method for determining the significance of GHG emissions in CEQA documents but instead defer the adoption of CEQA thresholds to the lead agency. Although the District has not yet formally adopted thresholds for GHG impacts under CEQA, the County of San Diego has adopted a 1 numeric threshold of 2,500 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) for land use development projects (County of San Diego 2013). Additionally, the City of San Diego has recently drafted a similar numeric threshold of 2,500 MTCO2e for land use development projects (City of San Diego 2013).

Project construction activities would contribute GHG emissions as a result of off-road diesel equipment exhaust and emissions from employee vehicles, material deliveries, and haul truck travel. Primary emissions would occur as carbon dioxide (CO2) from gasoline and diesel combustion, with more limited vehicle tailpipe emissions of nitrous oxide and methane, along with other GHG emissions that are related to vehicle cooling systems. However, the construction activities would most likely be minimal, and the sources of emissions would not be present once construction has terminated. Operation of the proposed project would be similar to operations under existing

1 Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) is a measurement that is used to account for the fact that different GHGs have different global warming potentials based on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. For example, 1 ton of methane has the same contribution to the greenhouse effect as approximately 25 tons of carbon dioxide on a 100-year timescale, making methane a much more potent GHG than carbon dioxide.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 6-6 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

SDUSD Chapter 6. Environmental Effects Found Not to Be Significant

conditions and would not result in new sources of space and energy use, water use, or waste production compared with existing uses. The project would not change land uses, nor would it increase student population. Therefore, there would be no increase in the number of motor vehicle trips to the project site. As such, it is anticipated that the combined construction and operational emissions that would result with implementation of the proposed project would be minimal and far below the City of San Diego’s interim or County of San Diego’s adopted thresholds of significance. Therefore, impacts for this issue would be less than significant.

The District has yet to adopt a qualified plan, policy, or regulation to reduce GHG emissions. Therefore, the most applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions is Assembly Bill (AB) 32, which codified the state’s GHG emissions reduction targets for the future. CARB adopted the AB 32 Scoping Plan as a framework for achieving AB 32. The AB 32 Scoping Plan outlines a series of technologically feasible and cost-effective measures to reduce statewide GHG emissions. These strategies are geared toward sectors and activities that generate significant amounts of GHGs. For example, the majority of measures address issues related to building energy, waste and wastewater generation, goods movement, on-road transportation, water usage, and gases with high global warming potentials. Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of GHGs. Construction of the proposed project would be short term in nature, and emissions are not anticipated to exceed any proposed threshold throughout the state. In addition, long-term project operations would not generate any new project traffic and would result in no increase in indirect energy consumption related to electricity, water, wastewater, or solid waste. Therefore, impacts for this issue would be less than significant.

6.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Construction activities related to the proposed modernization project, including addition and modification of the administration building, would require the use of materials that are typically associated with construction activities (e.g., diesel fuel, gasoline, oil, hydraulic fluid, engine exhaust, solvent for welding PVC pipe, asphalt and binders, and paint). Any hazardous materials used during project construction would be transported, used, and stored in accordance with state and federal regulations regarding hazardous materials. Also, the handling of any hazardous materials disturbed during the addition and modification activities at the administration building would comply with state and federal regulations pertaining to the abatement of hazardous materials, including asbestos-containing material (ACM) and/or lead-based paint (LBP). The age of the administration building suggests the potential for ACM and LBP to have been used in its construction. Federal and state laws pertaining to LBP and ACM would apply to the project and would require specific actions and measures to be completed to address issues related to the potential for hazardous materials to be located on-site. For instance, Rule 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1926, outlines LBP assessment and removal requirements.

The modernization activities would not change ongoing operations at the K–8 school. The routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials used on the school site would be conducted in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations regarding hazardous materials. For instance, installation of food service-related project components (e.g., grease traps) would require compliance with the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health and the City of San Diego’s Food Establishment Wastewater Discharge Program. Therefore, construction and operational impacts for these issues would be less than significant.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 6-7 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

SDUSD Chapter 6. Environmental Effects Found Not to Be Significant

The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List (Cortese List) is a planning document that is used by the state, local agencies, and developers to comply with CEQA requirements by providing information about the location of sites with a hazardous materials release. A review of Cortese List data resources (i.e., the Department of Toxic Substances Control [DTSC] EnviroStor database; DTSC corrective action sites; leaking underground storage tank sites from the State Water Resources Control Board [SWRCB] GeoTracker database; solid waste disposal sites identified by SWRCB, with waste constituents above hazardous waste levels outside the waste management unit; “active” cease-and-desist orders and cleanup abatement orders from SWRCB) indicates that the project site is not listed as a site that contains hazardous waste and substances. Therefore, no impact is identified for this issue area. The Audubon K–8 School site is not within 2 miles of a public or private airport facility. The closest airport to the K–8 school, San Diego International Airport, is about 8.6 miles to the northwest. Furthermore, the K–8 school site is not within the boundaries of the Airport Influence Area of San Diego International Airport, which is administered by the Airport Land Use Commission (Airport Land Use Commission 2014). Also, there are no private airstrips within the vicinity of the project site. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with the Airport Land Use Commission or any other applicable rules and regulations pertaining to airports and airport safety, and no impacts would result upon implementation of the proposed project. Emergency management services are overseen by the San Diego Fire-Rescue Department, which responds to emergencies involving earthquakes, floods, or terrorist acts. In addition, the District maintains a Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan that addresses multiple hazards, including earthquakes, floods, wildfire, landslides, and tsunamis. Access to the Audubon K–8 School site for emergency vehicles is provided from Bonsall Street, and internal circulation is provided from the existing fire lane. Construction activities would occur within the project site and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to the K–8 school. After construction of the project, emergency access to the site would remain similar to the existing condition described above. As a result, implementation of the proposed project would not impair or physically interfere with an emergency response, and the impacts are considered to be less than significant. The project site is within an urban developed area and not within an identified wildland fire hazard area. As identified by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) Map, the project site is listed as a Non-VHFHSZ (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 2007). The nearest VHFHSZ is about 2 miles southeast of the project site, near the Sweetwater Reservoir. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death from wildfires, and impacts would be less than significant.

6.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Implementation of the proposed school modernization improvements would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. During construction, short-term water quality impacts associated with increased erosion could occur; however, the project would implement best management practices (BMPs), as required by the local Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, to minimize erosion effects. Implementation of these construction BMPs would ensure that significant water quality impacts during construction would not occur. Therefore, impacts associated with water quality standards or waste discharge requirements would be less than significant.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 6-8 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

SDUSD Chapter 6. Environmental Effects Found Not to Be Significant

The project would not affect groundwater resources. The K–8 school is currently serviced by the City of San Diego Water Utilities Department and does not propose to use groundwater. Therefore, there would be no impacts associated with this criterion.

The project would not substantially alter the site’s existing drainage pattern in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation or increase the amount of surface runoff. The project site has been previously graded and is essentially flat. The proposed construction activities to improve existing school facilities would result in minimal disturbance to the site. The proposed project would result in a minimal increase (i.e., less than 1 acre) in the amount of impervious surface, which would be associated with expansion of the parking lot and additions and modifications to the administration building. Therefore, impacts associated with these issues would be less than significant.

The proposed project would increase the amount of impervious surface by less than 1 acre. It is not expected to create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of the existing stormwater drainage system that serves the project site. Drainage from the site would continue to be directed to the existing storm drain system. Also, as discussed above, the project would be required to implement construction and post-construction BMPs to ensure that significant water quality impacts related to surface runoff would not occur. Therefore, the amount of runoff entering the storm drain system would not create demand for new stormwater facilities and would not result in a substantial new source of polluted runoff. Consequently, impacts would be less than significant.

As shown on flood maps provided by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency, the school property is not within a 100-year flood zone (Federal Emergency Management Agency 1997). The proposed project would involve modernization of an existing facility and would not place housing or structures within a 100-year flood hazard area. Therefore, there would be no impact associated with these issues.

Implementation of the proposed school improvements would not expose people or structures to significant risks involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. Sweetwater Reservoir is the closest body of water to the project site (1.8 miles south). However, the elevation of the project site (450 feet) is substantially higher than the elevation of Sweetwater Reservoir (242 feet) (Google Earth 2015a, 2015b). Additionally, the project site is not within the dam inundation area of Sweetwater Reservoir (County of San Diego 2010). As such, there would be no impact.

A seiche is a standing wave in an enclosed or partially enclosed body of water. The project site is 1.8 miles away from Sweetwater Reservoir and at a higher elevation. It is not within the inundation area of the reservoir. Therefore, the project site is not at risk of inundation by a seiche. The project site is also approximately 8 miles east of the Pacific Ocean and not within an area that is at risk of tsunami inundation (County of San Diego 2010). Furthermore, the project site and surrounding area are relatively flat, and there are no landforms in the project vicinity that could produce mudflows. In addition, the project site is not in an area that is susceptible to landslides and would not contribute to a mudflow. Therefore, there are no impacts related to this criterion.

6.10 Land Use and Planning The proposed modernization improvements would be contained within the existing property boundaries and would not physically divide an established community. In addition, the existing land use designation and zoning allow for the improvements that would occur under the proposed project. As such, the project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan or policy adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Impacts are not anticipated to occur.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 6-9 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

SDUSD Chapter 6. Environmental Effects Found Not to Be Significant

Implementation of the project would not conflict with any applicable habitat or natural community conservation plan. The existing school campus is in an area that is currently developed and highly urbanized. The project area is completely surrounded by existing development. No sensitive habitat exists within the project site or in areas surrounding the site. Lastly, no habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans are in place or applicable to the project area. Therefore, there would be no impact.

6.11 Mineral Resources The proposed project involves modernization of an existing school. There are no mineral extraction or other mining operations within the project site. In addition, the District does not intend to remove the school; therefore, the site would not be available for mineral extraction activities in the future. Therefore, there would be no impact.

6.12 Noise Construction and operation of the proposed project would result in less-than-significant noise impacts. The modernization of the existing K–8 school site would involve minor construction activities, including creation of a joint-use field; installation of fencing, security lighting, and air- conditioning; improvements to school accessibility; renovation of restrooms; replacement of kitchen fixtures; replacement of deteriorating site infrastructure; addition and modification of the administration building; and upgrades to performance spaces. Noise levels associated with these activities would be in compliance with City of San Diego CEQA Significance Determination Thresholds, which state that:

Temporary construction noise that exceeds 75 dB(A) Leq at a sensitive receptor would be considered significant. Construction noise levels measured at or beyond the property line of any property zoned residential shall not exceed an average sound level greater than 75 decibels (dB) during the 12-hour period from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. In addition, construction activity is prohibited between the hours of 7:00 p.m. of any day and 7:00 a.m. of the following day or on legal holidays, as specified in Section 21.04 of the San Diego Municipal Code, with the exception of Columbus Day and Washington’s Birthday, or on Sundays that would create disturbing, excessive, or offensive noise unless a permit has been applied for and granted beforehand by the Noise Abatement and Control Administration, in conformance with San Diego Municipal Code Section 59.5.0404 (City of San Diego 2011). The operations or capacity of the existing school would not increase with implementation of the project. Therefore, construction and operational noise impacts would be less than significant.

Implementation of the proposed project would not expose people to excessive ground-borne noise or vibration. Typical construction equipment, such as excavators, backhoes, bulldozers, and haul trucks, would be used on the project. Such equipment is not anticipated to create excessive groundborne noise or vibration. Non-typical heavy machinery, such as pile drivers, which could result in excessive noise conditions, would not be used. Also, operation of the school would not involve activities that would create perceptible vibration. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

There would be no noise impacts associated with nearby airports. The project site is not within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of a public airport or private airstrip. The airport closest to the K–8 school, San Diego International Airport, is about 8.6 miles to the northwest. Therefore, no impacts associated with this issue would occur.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 6-10 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

SDUSD Chapter 6. Environmental Effects Found Not to Be Significant

6.13 Population and Housing The project site is an existing school property in a built-out, urbanized community. The proposed project would not involve demolition or construction of any new housing or businesses and would not extend roads or other infrastructure. Under the proposed project, existing school facilities would be renovated, and circulation and access would be improved. These upgrades would not increase the capacity or operations of the existing K–8 school and would not induce substantial population growth. Therefore, impacts associated with these issues would not occur.

6.14 Public Services The proposed project would involve modernization of an existing school site, including improvements to improve the safety and security of the students and facility. It would not require additional police, fire, or other public service resources. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts on public services. Implementation of the project would not increase the capacity or operations of the existing school; therefore, no additional public services would be required for the project. There would be no impacts on public services.

6.15 Recreation The proposed project would include creation of a joint-use field, which would provide an additional recreational resource for the community. The creation of the joint-use field would involve minimal construction activities and result in minimal physical effects on the environment, which have been documented in the initial study. Implementation of the project would not increase student capacity or school operations and, therefore, would not generate additional demand for recreational uses in the project area. The impacts would be less than significant.

6.16 Transportation and Traffic The school modernization project would not affect existing traffic or conflict with an applicable traffic plan. Because the proposed improvements would not increase capacity of the school, existing traffic levels associated with drop-off or pick-up areas and existing traffic patterns in the surrounding area would not be affected.

Construction activities associated with the proposed improvements would generate a small and temporary amount of traffic from construction vehicles. However, the small increase in construction vehicles would not affect the levels of service for the surrounding roadways, and this increase would not conflict with standards set forth in SANDAG’s County Congestion Management Program because there would be no change in level of service, no impact on travel demand measures, and no substantial effects on designated roadways. Construction would not occur during any moratorium periods for construction identified by the City. Therefore, impacts for these issues would be less than significant.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 6-11 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

SDUSD Chapter 6. Environmental Effects Found Not to Be Significant

The proposed project would involve minor modifications to an existing K–8 school that is more than 8 miles from the nearest airport and would not affect existing air traffic patterns. Therefore, there would be no impact.

The project would not increase hazards due to design features, result in inadequate emergency access, or conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. The proposed project would improve safety and circulation at the school site through modifications to the student drop-off and pick-up areas. Emergency access routes within and surrounding the project site would not be altered by the proposed project. Construction activities would result in a small and temporary increase in the number of construction vehicles traveling to and from the project site, but this increase in traffic would not interfere with emergency access in the project area. Furthermore, the project would not increase student capacity or operational use such that existing emergency access routes would be affected by increased traffic generation. Therefore, there would be no impacts related to these issues.

6.17 Utilities and Service Systems The proposed project would not exceed applicable wastewater treatment requirements or result in the expansion or construction of wastewater treatment facilities. The project would not result in an increase in student capacity or school operations that could necessitate greater demand for this service. Therefore, the need for wastewater treatment would not change from existing conditions as a result of the proposed project. Impacts on wastewater service would not occur.

The proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. Improvements proposed as part of the project would upgrade or replace existing school facilities and would result in an only minimal increase in runoff, which could be accommodated by the existing stormwater drainage facilities. Therefore, impacts on stormwater facilities would be less than significant.

Implementation of the proposed project would not increase capacity or operation of the existing school and, therefore, would not result in an increased demand on potable water supplies. The proposed project would involve development of a new joint-use field in an area that is currently covered by a gravel lot. The maintenance of the new joint-use field could result in a minimal increase in water use at the project site. However, irrigation for this joint-use field would be provided by reclaimed water sources and would not result in a substantial new demand on existing water supplies. Therefore, less-than-significant impacts on water supplies would occur.

Construction activities associated with the proposed project would result in a temporary increase in the amount of solid waste generated at the project site; however, per local and state requirements, including the requirements of the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, a portion of this waste would be recycled. In addition, because the proposed project would not increase the existing capacity of the school, solid waste generated during operation of the proposed project would not increase compared with existing conditions. Implementation of the project would not result in significant impacts on solid waste, and solid waste generated by the school would continue to be served by a permitted landfill with sufficient capacity to accommodate the project’s disposal needs. Additionally, the school would continue to comply with all applicable regulations associated with solid waste. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 6-12 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

Chapter 7 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts, as opposed to the project-level impacts analyzed in Chapter 4, “Environmental Analysis,” are impacts on the physical environment that would result from the incremental impacts of the proposed project when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. The intent of this cumulative impacts discussion, as required by Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines, is to account for any impact that may not be considered significant when considering the project on its own but may be part of a larger regional trend or may combine with similar impacts of other projects and together be considered significant.

7.1 Methodology 7.1.1 Scope of Analysis A cumulative impact analysis establishes a geographic scope in which cumulative conditions will be considered. This is known as the cumulative study area. The cumulative study area established for the proposed project depends on the resource under evaluation. According to Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines, there are two methods by which to establish the scope of a cumulative impacts analysis within an assumed area.

 Define a list of past, present, and probable future projects that would produce related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those outside the control of the agency.

 Define the projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or a prior environmental document that has been adopted or certified, that describes or evaluates regional or area-wide conditions that contribute to the cumulative impacts.

The cumulative impacts analysis conducted for the proposed project considered both methods. A list of projects within the surrounding community that are under construction, approved, or in the planning process but not yet approved was obtained in June 2015 from the City of San Diego website. The list includes all discretionary approvals that are in the pipeline (City of San Diego 2015). Specifically, it includes nine projects within an approximate 2-mile radius of the K–8 school (see Table 7-1). Of the nine projects, five are still pending approval, and the others have been approved and are most likely constructed.

7.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis The following cumulative impact analysis addresses all resource topics considered in the CEQA initial study, with the exception of those resources that were deemed to have no impact on the environment. As such, cumulative impacts related to agricultural resources, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, and public services are not considered because they would continue to have no impact on or contribution to a potentially significant cumulative impact, regardless of any reasonably foreseeable future project or projects.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 7-1 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

SDUSD Chapter 7. Cumulative Impacts

Table 7-1. List of Projects within 2 Miles of the Proposed Project

Distance from No Name Details Project Status 1 Skyline Terrace Estates Thirty new single-family residences at 1.70 miles Pending 421 Leghorn Avenue 2 Solbeck Residence One new single-family residence at 1.75 miles Approved 6450 Eider Street 3 Puentes Residence One new single-family residence at 1.52 miles Pending 6670 Cielo Drive 4 Skyline Hills Sixty-six new condos at 393 Royal Oak 0.40 mile Pending Drive 5 Encanto Urban Map Twenty-six new condos at 6370 Akins 1.73 miles Approved Waiver Avenue 6 Greens at Lisbon Twenty-seven new single-family residences 0.83 mile Pending at 7112 Lisbon Street 7 Cardosa Tentative Map Four new single-family residences at 0.23 mile Pending 744 Beacon Drive 8 Wat Lao Buddhist Temple Redevelop temple at 205 65th Street 1.62 miles Approved 9 Valero Mini Mart Expand mini mart at 7346 Skyline Drive 0.72 mile Approved Source: City of San Diego, 2015.

7.2.1 Aesthetics The geographic scope for aesthetics consists of the surrounding Skyline-Paradise Hills community, which is currently built out. Additional growth would not impinge upon any undeveloped land that provides visual relief to the community. Growth within the Skyline-Paradise Hills community would be subject to the San Diego General Plan and the Skyline-Paradise Hills Communities Plan, and as required by these planning documents, the architecture of any future development would need to be compatible with the visual setting of the surrounding community.

The proposed project would consist of improvements at an existing K–8 school campus and would be compatible with the surrounding urban setting. As such, it is not anticipated that implementation of the project, in combination with future redevelopment efforts, would result in adverse cumulative impacts related to views or visual character. 7.2.2 Air Quality A cumulative impact on air quality would occur if emissions from other projects would combine to exceed acceptable ambient pollutant levels or conflict with an applicable air quality plan. The geographic scope for air quality includes the entire SDAB because air quality plans and threshold levels are established at the air basin–wide level. Cumulative impacts on sensitive receptors and odors are considered at a more localized level because of the more limited area of dispersion and include the surrounding neighborhoods and areas in proximity to the source of the odor, respectively.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 7-2 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

SDUSD Chapter 7. Cumulative Impacts

The SDAB is currently in nonattainment for the federal 8-hour ozone standard as well as the state O3, PM10, and PM2.5 standards, which is a result of past and present projects and will be further impeded by reasonably foreseeable future projects (EPA 2012). Therefore, the emissions of concern within the SDAB are ozone precursors (volatile organic compounds [VOCs] and oxides of nitrogen [NOX]), PM10, and PM2.5. The project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in these pollutants if emissions were to exceed SDCAPCD Screening Level Thresholds. In addition, cumulative impacts could occur if emissions of concern from other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects in proximity to the proposed project would expose nearby receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

The project would have a less-than-significant direct impact on air quality during construction and operation. Although construction activities might occur during construction of other projects in the SDAB, possible cumulative impacts on air quality resulting from these combined activities would be addressed by standard SDCAPCD measures that apply to all construction projects, in addition to the project-level mitigation strategies identified for each project. Likewise, project-related operational emissions are expected to be minor and far below SDCAPCD thresholds. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.

With respect to pollutant concentrations, the project would not create substantial pollutant concentrations at nearby intersections under cumulative traffic conditions because there would be no increase in school operations. Consequently, this impact is considered less than significant. No mitigation is required. 7.2.3 Biological Resources As discussed in Section IV of Appendix A, no significant impacts on plants, wildlife, or special-status species are anticipated with implementation of the modernization activities. Given the current developed condition of the site and the disturbance from adjacent roads and residential development, special-status species are unlikely to utilize the project site. In addition, no impacts on jurisdictional waters or wetlands are anticipated as a result of project construction. The K–8 school site and surrounding areas do not include any identified federal or state jurisdictional waters.

The area surrounding the site is predominantly built out with urban and residential uses. The City of San Diego provided a list of nine cumulative projects, five of which are foreseeable future discretionary projects in the area (Table 7-1). However, implementation of each future private development project in the area would be subject to the requirements of the MSCP Subarea Plan and the Environmentally Sensitive Lands (ESL) Regulations. Both the MSCP Subarea Plan and the ESL Regulations provide for protection of biological resources on a citywide basis. Compliance with the MSCP Subarea Plan and the ESL Regulations would ensure that the impacts of future development would not be cumulatively significant. Likewise, nesting birds are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act during the breeding season (February 1 through August 15). All projects in the area, including the proposed project, would be subject to the same requirements. Compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act would ensure that the impacts of future development would not be cumulatively significant.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 7-3 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

SDUSD Chapter 7. Cumulative Impacts

7.2.4 Cultural Resources The area surrounding the K–8 school site is composed of residential development that is similar to development on the site. It is likely that many structures in the surrounding area are well maintained as good representations of architectural styles that were prominent in San Diego during the early part of the twentieth century. As redevelopment occurs within the community, providing increased density and additional commercial opportunities for residents, existing structures may be demolished to create developable land. Demolition may include residences and other structures that would be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR and/or the City of San Diego Historical Resources Inventory, as are certain features of the respective sites. A significant cumulative impact could occur if CEQA-significant historical resources were to be removed by future projects in the community. However, historical review of prospective project sites for future redevelopment would, in accordance with CEQA, identify any significant resources and present mitigation to prevent a significant cultural resources impact associated with removal of structures with historic value. Therefore, it is not likely that a significant cumulative impact with respect to historical resources would occur in the surrounding area as a result of future development in the area.

As discussed in the initial study (Appendix A), no cultural or archeological resources were identified on the site, and as such, the project would not contribute to any cumulative adverse impacts on cultural or archaeological resources. Impacts on paleontological resources are also considered to be less than significant and, when considered with other future projects, are not anticipated to contribute to a cumulative adverse impact on paleontological resources. 7.2.5 Geology and Soils The geographic scope for geology and soils includes areas that could be affected by the proposed project, in addition to surrounding areas that could affect people and property at Audubon K–8 School. The proposed project would not result in significant geology and soil impacts, and any future development in the surrounding area would be subject to the same building code regulations and considerations as the project to account for potential seismic hazards and site-specific geologic and soil concerns. The less-than-significant impacts identified for the project related to geology and soils would not contribute to a cumulative impact. 7.2.6 Greenhouse Gases In terms of GHG and climate change, both are exclusively cumulative impacts; there are no noncumulative GHG emission impacts from a climate change perspective. As such, GHGs and climate change are cumulatively considerable, even though the contribution may be individually limited (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association 2008). The County of San Diego methodology and thresholds used to analyze GHG-related impacts are thus cumulative in nature. Short-term construction and long-term operation of the project would result in emissions that would be considerably lower than the 2,500-metric-tons-per-year threshold that is used by the county. Moreover, building modernization projects, which were not quantified herein, involve increased use of insulation within the school structures and the installation of more efficient appliances/equipment, leading to lower operational GHGs by way of reduced energy consumption. These savings could offset a portion of the operational emissions. Therefore, the project would not contribute to a cumulatively significant impact related to GHGs and climate change. No mitigation is required.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 7-4 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

SDUSD Chapter 7. Cumulative Impacts

7.2.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials The geographic scope for hazards and hazardous materials analysis consists of areas that could be affected by proposed project activities as well as areas that could be affected by other projects, the activities from which could directly or indirectly affect activities on the project site. Record searches that covered areas within 0.25 mile of the project site were conducted to determine if development in the surrounding area could result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

The record searches conducted on GeoTracker and EnviroStor indicate that the Audubon K–8 School campus is not a site that contains hazardous waste and substances. There are currently no open cases involving hazardous materials sites within 0.25 mile of Audubon K–8 School. Present and reasonably foreseeable future projects would be subject to federal, state, and local hazardous materials laws. Therefore, cumulative effects related to hazardous materials from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would be less than cumulatively significant.

Potential hazards related to the possibility of asbestos-containing material or lead-based paint being released into the environment would be addressed through compliance with state and federal laws pertaining to these substances prior to and during project construction. Compliance with existing laws would be limited to the project site and would not affect surrounding land uses. Additionally, the potential environmental effect related to hazards and hazardous materials would be limited to the project site, and development of any other project in the vicinity would not affect the conclusions of this analysis or alter any of the mitigation requirements. Therefore, the project would not contribute to a significant cumulative effect related to hazards and hazardous materials. 7.2.8 Hydrology and Water Quality The geographic scope for hydrology and water quality includes the surrounding watershed. Future development that could contribute to a cumulative hydrology and water quality impact would be subject to the same requirements as the proposed project and required to apply to the Regional Water Quality Control Board for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit, which would include best management practices to prevent water quality impacts during construction and operation. Therefore, the project would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact related to hydrology and water quality. 7.2.9 Noise Project construction would result in a temporary increase in noise levels in the immediate vicinity of the construction areas; however, project construction would be in compliance with City of San Diego CEQA Significance Determination Thresholds, similar to construction by future projects in the surrounding areas. Construction noise impacts would be less than cumulatively significant. During operation of the school, no increase in the number of students or daily vehicle trips is anticipated. Therefore, no increase in operational noise is anticipated as a result of the project. Project-related operational noise and project-related traffic noise would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 7-5 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

SDUSD Chapter 7. Cumulative Impacts

7.2.10 Transportation and Traffic A project would result in a significant cumulative impact on transportation and traffic if it would contribute a substantial number of trips to a roadway segment or intersection that is anticipated to operate at an unacceptable level of service under long-term conditions. As discussed in the initial study (Appendix A), the proposed project would not result in an increase in the number of students at the K–8 school and would likewise not contribute to a significant cumulative impact related to traffic. 7.2.11 Utilities and Service Systems The proposed project would not result in expanded student capacity, and no additional services from utility providers would be required. Future projects in the city of San Diego would be required to evaluate their demand for utilities on a project-by-project basis and coordinate with utility providers to ensure adequate provision of services. As such, the proposed project would not contribute to cumulative impacts related to utilities and service systems.

An existing sewer line, which currently runs under the proposed softball field, would be relocated to an area along the western project boundary, and four new manholes would be installed to access the line. The possibility exists that the City of San Diego may relocate this line as a part of a City project in the future. If the line is relocated by the City prior to development of the athletic fields, then the proposed sewer line relocation by the District would not be required. However, the timing for City realignment of the sewer line is uncertain. Therefore, the analysis completed for this EIR addresses issues related to proposed sewer line relocation by the District.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 7-6 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

Chapter 8 Alternatives

Section 15126.6(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to analyze a range of project alternatives that would “feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project.” Alternatives analysis must also include a brief comparative evaluation of the No-Project Alternative, which assumes that none of a project’s features would be constructed or implemented and that the site would continue to exist and operate in its current condition. The factors that may be taken into account when considering the feasibility of alternatives include site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, and whether access to the alternative site can be reasonably acquired or controlled (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(1)). Alternative locations may be analyzed if the lead agency determines that implementation of a project on an off-site location is possible. The decision to select alternative locations needs to be based on whether off-site locations would avoid or substantially reduce any of the significant effects of the project. The lead agency may also make the determination that no feasible alternative locations exist; the reasoning behind this determination must be disclosed in the alternatives analysis.

Three alternatives to the proposed project are analyzed in this chapter and discussed in terms of their merits relative to the proposed project. A discussion of the alternative is provided below and includes the following:

 Alternative 1—No-Project Alternative.

8.1 Alternatives Considered but Rejected 8.1.1 Alternative Site Location This alternative considered relocation of the proposed project. The proposed modernization improvements would involve upgrades to existing buildings on the K–8 school campus and therefore could occur only on the existing school campus. As such, an alternative site would not be feasible for the modernization improvements. 8.1.2 No Administration Building or Security Fencing Modifications This alternative considers avoiding any proposed project-related activity that would result in a potentially significant impact on a historic resource. This includes the improvements at the administration building and the security fencing. As discussed in Section 4.1, “Cultural Resources,” the proposed project would involve additions/modifications to the main campus entrance area on the west elevation of Building A (administration wing) and the existing entry arcade. This would include the proposed addition to the west elevation of Building A and the new courtyard, with its security fencing, overhead trellises, concrete walkways, and mow curbs. These impacts would be avoided under the No Administration Building or Security Fencing Modifications Alternative; however, the objective regarding improving student health, safety, and security would not be met.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 8-1 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

SDUSD Chapter 8. Alternatives

The security fencing and the additions to Building A are proposed to secure the school site for safety reasons. As such, this alternative would preclude the District from fully achieving the project objectives. The alternative was rejected as infeasible.

8.2 Alternative Carried Forward 8.2.1 No-Project Alternative The No-Project Alternative assumes that none of the modernization improvements would be implemented, including additions and modifications to the school’s administration building. As a result, the No-Project Alternative would avoid the cultural (historic) impact. No other impacts were identified during environmental review of the project; therefore, the No-Project Alternative would avoid only the aforementioned project impact. Because the No-Project Alternative would avoid this project impact, it is considered environmentally superior to all of the project alternatives. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) requires a lead agency to identify an “environmentally superior alternative” from among the other alternatives that were examined if the No-Project Alternative is environmentally superior to the alternatives. However, because of the limited number of impacts that are anticipated to occur under the project, no other feasible alternatives have been identified that would meet the project objective of improving safety at the site without affecting views of the school and resulting in a significant impact on historic resources.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 8-2 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

Chapter 9 References

9.1 Printed References Airport Land Use Commission. 2014. San Diego International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Prepared by Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Adopted April 3, 2014, and amended May 1, 2014. Available: http://www.san.org/Airport-Projects/Land-Use-Compatibility#San-Diego- International-Airport-Approved-Apr-3-2014-398. Accessed: March 31, 2015.

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2008. CEQA and Climate Change.

California Air Resources Board. 2014. Area Designations Maps, State and National. August. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. Accessed: April 2, 2015.

California Department of Conservation. 2010. California Important Farmland Finder. Available: http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/ciff/ciff.html. Accessed: March 26, 2015.

California Department of Conservation. 2013. San Diego County Williamson Act 2013/2014. Available: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca. Accessed: March 26, 2015.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2007. Draft Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA for San Diego County. Published September 17. Available: http://frap.fire.ca.gov/webdata/ maps/san_diego/fhszl06_1_map.37.pdf. Accessed: March 31, 2015

California Department of Transportation. 2013. Officially Designated State Highways. Available: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/schwy.htm. Accessed: March 26, 2015.

City of San Diego. 1997. City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan. Published in March 1997. Prepared by the City of San Diego Community and Economic Development Department. Available: http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/programs/mscp/pdf/subareafullversion.pdf. Accessed: March 31, 2015.

City of San Diego. 2008. City of San Diego General Plan. Adopted by the Council of the City of San Diego on March 10, 2008. Available: http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/genplan/pdf/ generalplan/adoptedtoc.pdf. Accessed: March 31, 2015.

City of San Diego. 2011. California Environmental Quality Act Significance Determination Thresholds. Development Services Department. January. Available: http://www.sandiego.gov/development- services/pdf/news/sdtceqa.pdf. Accessed: April 2, 2015.

City of San Diego. 2013. Draft Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gas Emissions. March. Available: http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/genplan/cap/pdf/ghg_significance_thresholds_032213.pdf. Accessed: April 2, 2015.

City of San Diego. 2015. Open DSD, Approval Search. Development Services Department. Available: http://opendsd.sandiego.gov/web/approvals/. Accessed: June 05, 2015.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 9-1 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

SDUSD Chapter 9. References

County of San Diego. 2010. Multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Available: http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/oes/emergency_management/oes_jl_mitplan.html. Accessed: April 2, 2015.

County of San Diego. 2013. Guidelines for Determining Significance – Climate Change. November. Available: http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/dplu/advance/climateactionplan.html. Accessed: April 2, 2015.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1997. Flood Insurance Rate Map. June 19, 1997. Map Number: 06073C1910G. Available: http://msc.fema.gov/portal/ search?AddressQuery=8111%20San%20Vicente%20Street%20San%20Diego%20. Accessed: March 31, 2015.

Google Earth. 2015a. Aerial image. Reviewed on March 31, 2015.

Google Earth. 2015b. Aerial image. Reviewed on March 31, 2015.

ICF International and ASM Affiliates. 2015. Modern San Diego Public School Development.

San Diego Unified School District. 2011. Long-Range Facilities Master Plan. Site Data Evaluation for Audubon School. Available: http://www.sandi.net/cms/lib/CA01001235/Centricity/ Domain/82/Long_Range_Facilities_Master_Plan/Section_6_DataSheets_ES/ALL_A_E_DataSheets_ ES_2.pdf. Accessed: March 25, 2015.

San Diego Unified School District. 2015. School Accountability Report Card, Audubon K–8 School. Summary report, issued spring 2015 for academic year 2013–2014. Available: http://www.sandi.net/cms/lib/CA01001235/Centricity/Domain/121/R_R/Reports/sarc/2014 -15/SARC009short.pdf. Accessed: March 25, 2015.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1973. Soil Survey for the San Diego Area, California. Prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service. Issued in December 1973. Available: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MANUSCRIPTS/ california/CA638/0/part1.pdf. Accessed: March 30, 2015.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2012. Web Soil Survey. Natural Resource Conservation Service. Available: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed: April 2, 2015.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2015. Web Soil Survey. Available: http://websoilsurveysc.egov.usda/ gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed: March 31, 2015.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Last revised: December 14, 2012. Available: . Accessed: March 27, 2015.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2015. Criteria Pollutant Nonattainment Summary Report. January. Available: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ancl3.html. Accessed: April 2, 2015.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 9-2 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

Chapter 10 List of Contributors and Agencies/Organizations Contacted

This EIR was prepared by ICF International of San Diego, California. The following ICF International staff members and sub-consultants contributed to this document. The agencies and organizations listed below were contacted during preparation of the EIR.

10.1 ICF International

Devon Muto Project Director

Aaron Brownwood Project Manager

Liane Chen Environmental Planner

Tim Yates Cultural Analyst

Karolina Chmiel Archaeologist

Teal Zeisler GIS Analyst

Elizabeth Irvin Lead Technical Editor

Jenelle Mountain-Castro Publication Specialist

10.2 Agencies and Organizations 10.2.1 San Diego Unified School District

Kathryn Ferrell Environmental Coordinator

Alonso Casas Project Manager

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project October 2015 10-1 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 279.15

Appendix A Initial Study

AUDUBON K–8 SCHOOL MODERNIZATION PROJECT DRAFT INITIAL STUDY

P REPARED FOR THE:

San Diego Unified School District 4860 Ruffner Street San Diego, CA 92111 Contact: Alonso Casas (858) 573-5839

P REPARED BY:

ICF International 9775 Businesspark Avenue, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92131 Contact: Aaron Brownwood (858) 444-3908

April 2015

ICF International. 2015. Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. April. (ICF 00134.15.) San Diego, CA. Prepared for San Diego Unified School District, San Diego, CA.

Contents

List of Figures ...... ii Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... iv

Page Chapter 1 Introduction and Overview ...... 1-1 Overview ...... 1-1 Authority ...... 1-1 Scope of the Initial Study ...... 1-2 Impact Terminology ...... 1-2 Initial Study Organization ...... 1-3 Chapter 2 Project Description ...... 2-1 Project Overview ...... 2-1 Project Location ...... 2-1 Environmental Setting ...... 2-1 Proposed Project ...... 2-2 Modernization Improvements ...... 2-2 Construction Activities ...... 2-2 Discretionary Approvals Required ...... 2-3 Chapter 3 Environmental Checklist...... 3-1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ...... 3-2 Determination ...... 3-2 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ...... 3-3 I. Aesthetics ...... 3-4 II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources ...... 3-6 III. Air Quality ...... 3-8 IV. Biological Resources ...... 3-11 V. Cultural Resources ...... 3-14 VI. Geology and Soils ...... 3-16 VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...... 3-19 VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...... 3-21 IX. Hydrology and Water Quality ...... 3-24 X. Land Use and Planning ...... 3-27 XI. Mineral Resources ...... 3-28 XII. Noise ...... 3-29

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project April 2015 i Initial Study ICF 00134.15

XIII. Population and Housing ...... 3-31 XIV. Public Services ...... 3-32 XV. Recreation ...... 3-33 XVI. Transportation and Traffic ...... 3-34 XVII. Utilities and Service Systems ...... 3-36 XVIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance ...... 3-38 Chapter 4 References ...... 4-1 Project Description ...... 4-1 Aesthetics ...... 4-1 Agricultural Resources ...... 4-1 Air Quality ...... 4-1 Biological Resources ...... 4-1 Geology and Soils ...... 4-2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...... 4-2 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...... 4-2 Hydrology and Water Quality ...... 4-3 Noise ...... 4-3 Chapter 5 List of Preparers ...... 5-1 San Diego Unified School District ...... 5-1 ICF International ...... 5-1

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project April 2015 ii Initial Study ICF 00134.15

Figures

Figure Follows Page

1 Regional Location ...... 2-2

2 Project Vicinity ...... 2-2

3 Site Plan ...... 2-2

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project April 2015 iii Initial Study ICF 00134.15

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AB Assembly Bill ACM asbestos-containing material ADA American with Disabilities Act BMPs best management practices CARB California Air Resources Board CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control EIR Environmental Impact Report GHG greenhouse gas HABS Historic American Buildings Survey HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning LBP lead-based paint MND Mitigated Negative Declaration MTCO2e metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent ND Negative Declaration O3 ozone PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns RAQS Regional Air Quality Strategy SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments SDAB San Diego Air Basin SDAPCD San Diego Air Pollution Control District SDUSD or District San Diego Unified School District SR State Route SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project April 2015 iv Initial Study ICF 00134.15

Chapter 1 Introduction and Overview

Overview The San Diego Unified School District (SDUSD or District), as the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has prepared this Initial Study to evaluate the potential environmental consequences associated with the Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project. The proposed project consists of the repair and renovation of district school facilities, per Propositions S and Z. Implementation of the proposed project would require approval by the SDUSD Board. As part of the District’s discretionary review process, the proposed project is required to undergo an environmental review in accordance with CEQA.

Authority The proposed project is subject to the requirements of CEQA. The lead agency is the District. The purpose of this Initial Study is to provide a basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), or a Negative Declaration (ND) for this project. This Initial Study is intended to satisfy the requirements of CEQA (Public Resources Code, Div 13, Sec 21000-21177) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sec 15000-15387). CEQA encourages lead agencies and applicants to modify their projects to avoid significant adverse impacts.

Section 15063(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines states the content requirements of an Initial Study as follows:

15063(d) Contents. An Initial Study shall contain in brief form:

(1) A description of the project including the location of the project;

(2) An identification of the environmental setting;

(3) An identification of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix, or other method, provided that entries on a checklist or other form are briefly explained to indicate that there is some evidence to support the entries;

(4) A discussion of the ways to mitigate the significant effects identified, if any;

(5) An examination of whether the project would be consistent with existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land use controls;

(6) The name of the person or persons who prepared or participated in the Initial Study.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project April 2015 1-1 Initial Study ICF 00134.15

San Diego Unified School District Introduction and Overview

Scope of the Initial Study This Initial Study evaluates the proposed project’s effects on the following resource topics:

z aesthetics

z agriculture and forestry resources

z air quality

z biological resources

z cultural resources

z geology/soils

z greenhouse gas emissions

z hazards and hazardous materials

z hydrology and water quality

z land use and planning

z mineral resources

z noise

z population and housing

z public services

z recreation

z transportation and traffic

z utilities and service systems

z mandatory findings of significance

Impact Terminology The following terminology is used to describe the level of significance of impacts:

z A finding of no impact is appropriate if the analysis concludes that the project would not affect the particular topic area in any way.

z An impact is considered less than significant if the analysis concludes that it would cause no substantial adverse change to the environment and requires no mitigation.

z An impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated if the analysis concludes that it would cause no substantial adverse change to the environment with the inclusion of environmental commitments or other enforceable measures that have been agreed to by the applicant.

z An impact is considered potentially significant if the analysis concludes that it could have a substantial adverse effect on the environment. For the proposed project, no impacts were determined to be potentially significant.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project April 2015 1-2 Initial Study ICF 00134.15

San Diego Unified School District Introduction and Overview

Initial Study Organization The content and format of this report are designed to meet the requirements of CEQA. This Initial Study identifies the potential environmental impacts of the project to support the decision to prepare an EIR, MND, or ND. The report contains the following sections.

z Chapter 1, Introduction and Overview, identifies the purpose and scope of the Initial Study and the terminology used in the report.

z Chapter 2, Project Description, identities the location, background, and planning objectives of the project and describes the proposed project in detail.

z Chapter 3, Environmental Checklist and Analysis, presents the checklist responses for each resource topic. This section includes a brief setting section for each resource topic and identifies the potential impacts of implementing the proposed project.

z Chapter 4, References, identifies all printed references and individuals cited in this Initial Study.

z Chapter 5, List of Preparers, identifies the individuals who prepared this report and their areas of technical specialty.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project April 2015 1-3 Initial Study ICF 00134.15

Chapter 2 Project Description

Project Overview The project includes modernization improvements to provide a safe and contemporary learning environment in accordance with Propositions S and Z. These improvements include providing a courtyard and security fencing, remodeling the existing administration building, adding a student drop-off area, expanding parking areas, creating a joint-use field, installing a security fence and lighting, repairing and replacing sidewalks, and installing American with Disabilities Act (ADA) upgrades. Interior remodeling would occur for restrooms, interactive classrooms, ADA compliance, sink and grease trap installation for kitchen areas, and installation of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) in classrooms and some portables. The project would not result in any increase in student capacity at the school and would not involve any temporary relocation of students during construction. The modernization improvements would be completed as funding is available over multiple years, and they are scheduled to begin in 2015.

Project Location The proposed project involves improvements at a K–8 school situated in a residential neighborhood including some recreation and open space areas. Lomita Park is immediately to the southeast of and adjacent to the school site and the Jamacha open space system is located farther north of the school. The school is along San Vicente Street and Bonsall Street, and regional access is generally provided by State Route (SR) 125, which is about 1 mile east of the school.

Environmental Setting Audubon K–8 School is on a 9.2-acre, District-owned site at 8111 San Vicente Street in the City of San Diego, California. Access to Audubon K–8 School is provided via San Vicente Street, which can be accessed from major roadways such as Jamacha Road to the north, Cardiff Street to the east, Skyline Drive to the south, and Meadowbrook Drive to the west (Figures 1 and 2). Audubon K–8 School is in the Lomita Village area and serves grades Pre-Kindergarten (Pre-K) through 8. Surrounding land uses include single-family residences to the north, west, and south; Lomita Park to the southeast; and the Jamacha open space system to the north.

The Audubon K–8 School campus includes 33 classrooms (18 permanent and 15 portable) and 7 permanent office and administrative buildings, composing a total of approximately 9.2 acres (SDUSD 2011). Existing recreational facilities include a playground and a lunch court on asphalt. Student enrollment during the 2013/2014 school year at the K–8 school was 494 students (SDUSD 2015). Student population is expected to increase by the 2016/2017 school year to approximately 625 students (SDUSD 2011).

Within the Audubon K–8 School campus, there are about 59 marked parking stalls that serve the faculty and staff. There are about 43 parking spaces at the southwestern corner of the school site

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project April 2015 2-1 Initial Study ICF 00134.15

San Diego Unified School District Project Description

near the intersection of Pala Street and Bonsall Street. An additional approximately 16 marked parking spaces are located in the northeastern corner of the site near the intersection of Norm Street and San Vicente Street.

Proposed Project Proposed project actions at Audubon K–8 School include modernization improvements to student drop-off and pick-up areas, installation of an emergency communication system, expansion of existing parking, creation of a joint-use field, site fencing and lighting security, installation of air conditioning, accessibility improvements, renovation of restrooms, replacement of kitchen fixtures and general site infrastructure, expansion of the existing administration building, and performance space upgrades (Figure 3). All of the proposed project actions would be supported by bond funds under Propositions S and Z.

Modernization Improvements The proposed modernization improvements at Audubon K–8 would include general upgrades to existing school facilities to create a better learning environment. No buildings would be demolished or removed; however, the existing administration building would be remodeled.

Student Health, Safety, and Security. An emergency communications system would be installed, in addition to 10-foot-high security fencing and lighting around a proposed courtyard, to secure the site against vandals and intruders. As part of the project, student drop-off and pick-up areas for school buses and automobiles along the northern part of the campus would be improved to increase student safety. Improvements would involve cutting sidewalk and striping. The west elevation of the administration building would be expanded to eliminate the existing open arcade that leads into the school campus to further enhance campus security and safety.

School Accessibility and Code Compliance. Proposition S includes provisions to upgrade school sites to achieve compliance with ADA Titles I and II. Replacement of non-compliant ADA ramps and installation of ADA signage and a path of travel at the proposed parking and joint-use field would occur as part of the project. The existing parking lot on the southwestern corner of the school would be renovated to accommodate an additional 21 spaces for visitors to the joint-use field. Also, the existing administration building would be expanded to secure the campus by removing the open layout and requiring visitors to check in prior to accessing the campus.

Interior Remodeling. The project would include remodeling restrooms, creating interactive classrooms, and adding sink and grease traps to the kitchen area. Installation of new HVAC equipment in classrooms and some portables, including new rooftop mechanical units and electrical upgrades, would also occur as part of the proposed project.

Construction Activities Construction of the project is expected to be completed in 2016. During construction of the project, the construction activities would be limited to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. to comply with the City of San Diego’s noise ordinance.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project April 2015 2-2 Initial Study ICF 00134.15

Inyo Kings Tulare N e v a d a

Kern

Santa C a l i f o r n i a Barbara Ventura San Bernardino

Los Angeles

Orange Riverside

San Diego

Project Site ^_

± 0 2 4 8

Miles

Source: ESRI World Map (2015). K:\San Diego\projects\SD_Unified_School_District\00134_15_Audubon_IS\mapdoc\Fig01_RegionalLocation.mxd4/1/2015 19542 Figure 1 Regional Location Audubon K-8 School Modernization Project - Initial Study

Project Site

± 0 200 400

Feet Source: Imagery - Bing. K:\San Diego\projects\SD_Unified_School_District\00134_15_Audubon_IS\mapdoc\Fig02_ProjectVicinity.mxd 4/1/2015 K:\San Diego\projects\SD_Unified_School_District\00134_15_Audubon_IS\mapdoc\Fig02_ProjectVicinity.mxd 19542 Figure 2 Project Vicinity Audubon K-8 School Modernization Project - Initial Study

Source: SDUSD, 2013. K:\San Diego\projects\SD_Unified_School_District\00134_15_Audubon_IS\mapdoc (03/31/2015)

Figure 3 Site Plan Audubon K-8 School Modernization Project - Initial Study

San Diego Unified School District Project Description

Discretionary Approvals Required SDUSD is the lead agency under CEQA and is responsible for the permitting of the project. The District would also need the approval of compliance with the Office of the Division of State Architect.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project April 2015 2-3 Initial Study ICF 00134.15

Chapter 3 Environmental Checklist

1. Project Title: Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: San Diego Unified School District Facilities Planning & Construction 4860 Ruffner Street San Diego, CA 92111 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Alonso Casas, Facilities Development Project Manager 4. Project Location: Audubon K–8 School: 8111 San Vicente Street, San Diego, CA 92114 5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: San Diego Unified School District Facilities Planning & Construction 4860 Ruffner Street San Diego, CA 92111 6. General Plan Designation1: Residential; Existing school site 7. Zoning1: RS-1-7 (Residential--Single Unit) 8. Description of Project: School improvements per Propositions S and Z (see Chapter 2, Project Description)

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: North: Single-family Residential South: Single-family Residential East: Lomita Park West: Single-family Residential 10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Office of the Division of State Architect is Required: San Diego City Council (joint-use field approval only) San Diego City Food Establishment Wastewater Discharge (kitchen upgrades) San Diego County Health Department (kitchen upgrades)

1 By state law, school facilities can be exempted from local land use development requirements such as General Plans and zoning ordinances. It is expected that the SDUSD Board of Education will exempt this project from such land use controls. General Plan and zoning information is therefore provided only for reference, as they will not apply to the property.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project April 2015 3-1 Initial Study ICF 00134.15

San Diego Unified School District Environmental Checklist

Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would potentially be affected by this project (i.e., the proposed project would involve at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact”), as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forest Air Quality Resources Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Hazards and Hazardous Hydrology/Water Quality Emissions Materials Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have an impact on the environment that is “potentially significant” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis, as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the project, nothing further is required.

Signature Date

Printed Name For

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project April 2015 3‐2 Initial Study ICF 00134.15

San Diego Unified School District Environmental Checklist

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 if it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as onsite, 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, 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. “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies when the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from a “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 if, pursuant to tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063(c)(3)(D)). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where earlier analyses 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 Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, when appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9. The explanation of each issue should identify: a. the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to a less-than- significant level.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project April 2015 3-3 Initial Study ICF 00134.15

San Diego Unified School District Environmental Checklist

Less-than- Significant Potentially Impact with Less-than- Significant Mitigation Significant No I. Aesthetics Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings along a scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area?

Discussion

Would the Project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

No Impact. The project site is in an urbanized area that does not feature scenic views or contain other scenic resources and is dominated mostly by residential development. There are no identified scenic vistas or specific viewpoints in the areas surrounding the project site identified in the Skyline-Paradise Hills Community Plan (part of the City of San Diego’s General Plan), and there are no other public viewing areas where residents would have prolonged views of scenic resources. Impacts are not anticipated to occur. b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings along a scenic highway?

No Impact. There are no scenic highways in the vicinity of the proposed project (Caltrans 2013). Officially Designated State Scenic Highways within the City and County of San Diego include portions of SR-163 and SR-125, neither of which are in the vicinity of the project site. While SR-125 occurs about 1 mile east of the project, the designated portion is more than 2.5 miles north of Audubon K–8 School and views from the designated portion would not be affected by the proposed project. Furthermore, the project site is relatively flat and surrounded by an urban environment. There are no other scenic resources, including trees and rock outcroppings, within or adjacent to the project area. Therefore, there are no potential impacts related to scenic resources within a state scenic highway, and no impact would occur. c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed project is not anticipated to substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the Audubon K–8 School or the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Visual changes associated with the project would mostly be associated with the proposed administration building remodel and expansion and the proposed courtyard and fencing

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project April 2015 3-4 Initial Study ICF 00134.15

San Diego Unified School District Environmental Checklist

improvements. The administration building would be altered to include an addition to the administration wing, the associated courtyard with new 10-foot-tall western and northern perimeter steel security fencing, overhead trellises, concrete walkways, and mow curbs. The trellis would include canted-edge beams that match the canted fascia of circulation canopies at the existing main entry arcade and other places on the campus. The security fencing would integrate trellis supports with stucco-covered “pilasters” and would form rectangular slab-like elements that harmonize visually with the existing arcade’s rectangular slab columns, which would be preserved in place under the circulation canopy. These design elements would help reduce impacts on character-defining features of the original 1955 complex. As a result, the project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character of the school site and the surrounding residential neighborhood, and impacts would be less than significant. d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area?

Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would include the installation of security lighting throughout the campus; however, because lighting would be downcast and used to illuminate the sides of buildings (as opposed to a recreational field), this lighting would result in minimal spillover into adjacent properties and roadways. Therefore, the introduction of security lighting is not anticipated to adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area. Impacts would remain less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project April 2015 3-5 Initial Study ICF 00134.15

San Diego Unified School District Environmental Checklist

Less-than- Significant Potentially Impact with Less-than- Significant Mitigation Significant No II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact In determining whether impacts on 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, the Forest Legacy Assessment project, and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or conflict with a Williamson Act contract? c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 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?

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project April 2015 3-6 Initial Study ICF 00134.15

San Diego Unified School District Environmental Checklist

Discussion

Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or conflict with a Williamson Act contract? c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 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. Implementation of the school improvements would have no impact on agriculture or forestry resources. This school property is in a densely urbanized area where there are no farmlands or forestry resources. According to the California Department of Conservation San Diego County Important Farmland 2010 map (California Department of Conservation 2010), the project site is classified as “urban and built-up land,” which does not contain any agricultural uses or areas designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Furthermore, there are no Williamson Act contracts or forest lands in the project vicinity (California Department of Conservation 2013). Therefore, there would be no impact.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project April 2015 3-7 Initial Study ICF 00134.15

San Diego Unified School District Environmental Checklist

Less-than- Significant Potentially Impact with Less-than- Significant Mitigation Significant No III. Air Quality Impact Incorporated Impact Impact When available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is a nonattainment area for an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

Discussion

Would the Project:

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

No Impact. The project site is in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), which is contiguous with San Diego County. The San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) is required, pursuant to the federal and state Clean Air Acts, to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the SDAB is in nonattainment. The SDAB is currently classified as a nonattainment area for the federal 8-hour ozone (O3) standard (2008 standard of 0.075 parts per million) and a maintenance area for both the old (1997 standard of 0.08) 8-hour O3 standard and the federal carbon monoxide (CO) standard. In addition, the SDAB is classified as a nonattainment area for state O3, particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), and particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM10) standards (USEPA 2015; CARB 2014).

All areas designated as nonattainment are required to prepare plans showing how the area would meet the state and federal air quality standards by its attainment dates. The San Diego Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) is the region’s applicable air quality plan for improving air quality in the region and attaining federal and state air quality standards. The RAQS relies on information from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), including projected growth in the county, which is based in part on local general plans. Generally, projects that propose development that are consistent with the land use designations and growth anticipated by the local general plan and SANDAG would be consistent with the RAQS.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project April 2015 3-8 Initial Study ICF 00134.15

San Diego Unified School District Environmental Checklist

Implementation of the project would involve renovations to improve interior and exterior portions of the school, including construction of a joint-use field along with interior renovations. The project would not result in any increase in student capacity at the school and would not involve any temporary relocation of students during construction. Project construction would comply with SDAPCD Rules and Regulations, including Rules 50, 51, and 55, which forbid visible emissions, nuisance activities, and require fugitive dust control measures, respectively. The project would not change land uses nor would it increase student population, which would result in no increase in motor vehicle trips to the project site. As such, the project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of any applicable air quality plan.

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

Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed modernization improvements would result in emissions as a result of fugitive dust from ground disturbance, construction vehicle exhaust, exhaust and road dust emissions from employees, material delivery and haul truck travel, and offgassing from any paving and architectural coating activities. Emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific type of construction activity occurring, and, for fugitive dust, prevailing weather conditions. Emissions resulting from modernization improvements are expected to be well below applicable SDAPCD Air Quality Impact Analysis trigger levels for criteria pollutants because construction would be short term and minimal, and would not involve substantial work during a single day. As a result, it is unlikely that the project’s construction emission levels would exceed any of the Air Quality Impact Analysis trigger levels. Therefore, construction of the project would not result in an impact on air quality in that emissions are not expected to exceed SDAPCD applicable air quality standards or contribute to existing air quality violations. The project is required to comply with SDAPCD rules and regulations, including Rules 50, 51, and 55, as described above in III.a. Additionally, the project would not result in any increase in student capacity. Therefore, there would be no long-term operational changes, and operational impacts would be less than significant. c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is a nonattainment area for an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

Less-than-Significant Impact. Proposed project activities would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants in a non-attainment region. The project site is in the SDAB, which is classified as non-attainment for certain federal- and state-designated criteria pollutants including O3, PM10, and PM2.5. As discussed above, the project would not increase the operations or capacity of the existing school and, therefore, operational impacts would not occur. Also, emissions from construction would be temporary and localized, and the project would comply with all required SDAPCD emissions and fugitive dust measures. Compliance with these measures would ensure that the cumulative contribution of criteria pollutants during construction would be less than significant.

d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Sensitive receptors are facilities and structures where people live or spend considerable amounts of time including retirement homes, residences, schools,

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project April 2015 3-9 Initial Study ICF 00134.15

San Diego Unified School District Environmental Checklist

playgrounds, child care centers, and athletic facilities. The proposed project is near residences and the site itself is an existing school facility, which is considered a sensitive receptor. The nearest offsite receptor locations are the residences that surround the project site. Construction would be short term and would occur over a timeframe of several months. This is significantly shorter than the 70-year exposure period typically associated with chronic cancer health risks. Accordingly, construction of the project is not anticipated to result in an elevated cancer risk to exposed sensitive receptors. Once the project is operational, emissions would not increase over existing conditions. Therefore, emissions would be minimal, and compliance with all SDAPCD rules would ensure that nearby sensitive receptors are not exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations. Consequently, impacts would be less than significant.

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

No Impact. Project-related odor emissions would be minimal and would not affect a substantial number of people. During construction activities, emissions from construction equipment may be evident in the immediate area on a temporary basis. Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include any architectural coating and asphalt paving. Additionally, material deliveries and hauling heavy-duty truck trips could create an occasional “whiff” of diesel exhaust for nearby receptors. These odors would not affect a substantial number of people, as the scale of construction would be small. Standard operation of the school would not produce objectionable odors and there would be no permanent impacts. Impacts for this issue would be less than significant.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project April 2015 3-10 Initial Study ICF 00134.15

San Diego Unified School District Environmental Checklist

Less-than- Significant Potentially Impact with Less-than- Significant Mitigation Significant No IV. Biological Resources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, coastal wetlands, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project April 2015 3-11 Initial Study ICF 00134.15

San Diego Unified School District Environmental Checklist

Discussion

Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, coastal wetlands, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

a–f) Less-than-Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would involve removal of an ornamental tree internal to the campus but would not affect sensitive biological resources. The project site is developed as a K–8 school and located in an established, densely built-out area. No significant biological resources are on site, including habitats or wildlife corridors. Project construction would not be near any sensitive vegetation community or wildlife corridor, as all construction activities would be conducted within the existing campus, which is surrounded by residential development and major roads. The nearest identified biological resource is over 6.8 miles southeast of the project site and includes land around Otay Lakes identified as Cornerstone Lands containing coastal sage scrub under the City of San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Plan Multiple Habitat Planning Area (City of San Diego 1997). All project construction would occur within the existing campus and far from this sensitive vegetation community. Therefore, impacts on biological resources would be less than significant.

The tree to be removed provides potentially suitable nesting habitat for migratory birds and raptors protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code, which prohibit the take or destruction of migratory birds/raptors, their nests, and/or eggs. Impacts on nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and similar provisions of the Fish and Game Code can occur if the tree is removed during the breeding season (February 1 through August 15). These impacts can be avoided by removing the tree outside of the breeding season and before other construction activities occur. If the tree is proposed to be removed during the breeding season, a pre-construction survey must be conducted to determine if any protected birds are nesting within or immediately adjacent to any vegetation within the impact areas. A qualified biologist would be required to conduct a survey of all vegetation within an approximately 200-foot area surrounding the proposed construction footprint to identify nests or nesting activity. The survey

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project April 2015 3-12 Initial Study ICF 00134.15

San Diego Unified School District Environmental Checklist

would take place no more than 3 days prior to commencing tree removal. If a nest is found, the tree would not be removed until the adults are no longer using it or the young have fledged. Avoiding impacts on occupied nests will ensure that the project would not result in impacts on nesting birds.

Potential impacts on sensitive habitat or federally protected wetland would not occur because the project site is developed and does not contain any suitable wildlife habitat or wetland areas that could be affected. Furthermore, because the existing school site is within a suburban residential neighborhood, the site would not substantially interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. The Jamacha Open Space system north of the project site may provide for some wildlife movement; however, project actions would not affect the ability of this area to provide wildlife corridor movement. Impacts would be less than significant. Implementation of the proposed project would not otherwise conflict with local ordinances pertaining to biological resources, and the project site is not within an adopted habitat conservation plan. Impacts would remain less than significant.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project April 2015 3-13 Initial Study ICF 00134.15

San Diego Unified School District Environmental Checklist

Less-than- Significant Potentially Impact with Less-than- Significant Mitigation Significant No V. Cultural Resources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

Discussion

Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?

Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would result in alterations to the original portion of the school campus that would diminish its integrity of design, materials, and feeling. The original portion of the school was constructed in 1955 and appears to be eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources under Criterion 3, at the local level of significance, as the work of San Diego-era master architect Samuel W. Hamill, and as an excellent example of Mid-Century Modern school architecture and planning. The proposed project-related actions include an addition to the west elevation of the administration building, a steel perimeter security fence under overhead trellises, concrete walkways, and mow curbs that would diminish the integrity of the design, materials, and feeling in the area. Mitigation in the form of documentation would be required to reduce potentially significant impacts to a level below significance, which is further outlined below in Mitigation Measure CR-1. After the incorporation of MM CR-1, impacts on historical resources would be reduced to less-than-significant levels.

Mitigation Measure CR-1. Documentation Modeled on Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS). Prior to the issuance of construction permits, the District shall prepare HABS-like documentation of the original 1955 portion of the school. The documentation will be modeled on and consistent with HABS Level III treatment, which includes the preparation of large-format black and white photographs providing exterior views of the significant portion of the campus and a photo index describing each of the photographic views and compositions. These would be provided along with a short report containing a brief physical description of the significant portion of the school, a brief narrative explaining its historical significance, and a site map of the campus. The photographic views would be prepared as 8 x 10 machine-printed black and white archival prints. The HABS-like documentation packages would be archived for public access at the California Room of the Central Public Library and the San Diego History Center.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project April 2015 3-14 Initial Study ICF 00134.15

San Diego Unified School District Environmental Checklist b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?

Less-than-Significant Impact. A records search was performed on the Audubon K–8 School site, which included a review of records kept at the South Coast Information Center to identify previously recorded archaeological sites within the record search limits, identify any previously conducted cultural resource studies, provide historical maps of the project site and surrounding area, and provide copies of any pertinent site record forms. The results of the records search indicated that the potential for historic and prehistoric archaeology at the property is low. Impacts are considered to be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

Less-than-Significant Impact. Soils at the project site are part of the Otay Formation and are considered highly sensitive paleontological resources; however, because project-related construction activities are not anticipated to extend deep enough to result in a potentially significant impact, impacts are considered to be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. According to the City of San Diego thresholds for potential paleontological impacts, construction activities that occur at areas rated highly sensitive that do not disturb more than 1,000 cubic yards and extend deeper than 10 feet below the surface would be less than significant and would not require monitoring. Based on plans provided by the District, the proposed construction activities would not occur more than 10 feet below the surface and, as such, impacts are expected to remain less than significant. No mitigation would be required. d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

Less-than-Significant Impact. The Audubon K–8 School site is not a formal cemetery and is not located near a formal cemetery. The project vicinity is fully developed, and there is no record of human remains being identified during development of the area. The site is not known to be located on a burial ground. Therefore, it is highly unlikely the proposed project would disturb any human remains during construction. Should human remains be uncovered during construction, as specified by State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, no further disturbance will occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code 5097.98. If such a discovery occurs, excavation or construction will halt in the area of the discovery, the area will be protected, and consultation and treatment will occur as prescribed by law. If the County Coroner recognizes the remains to be Native American, he or she will contact the Native American Heritage Commission, who will appoint the Most Likely Descendant. Additionally, if the bones are determined to be Native American, a plan will be developed regarding the treatment of human remains and associated burial objects, and the plan will be implemented under the direction of the Most Likely Descendant. Impacts are anticipated to be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project April 2015 3-15 Initial Study ICF 00134.15

San Diego Unified School District Environmental Checklist

Less-than- Significant Potentially Impact with Less-than- Significant Mitigation Significant No VI. Geology and Soils Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 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 an onsite or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems in areas where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project April 2015 3-16 Initial Study ICF 00134.15

San Diego Unified School District Environmental Checklist

Discussion

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

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

ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?

a) i & ii. Less-than-Significant Impact. Impacts involving the exposure of people or structures to potential geologic hazards would not be significant. The project site is in a known seismically active region where several known earthquake faults occur in the regional vicinity; however, no known active faults exist beneath the school site (City of San Diego 2008). Additionally, the project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (City of San Diego 2008). Construction and design of the proposed project elements would comply with all seismic-safety development requirements including Title 24 standards of the 2013 California Building Code (based on the 2012 International Building Code). Conformance with all applicable seismic-safety development requirements would minimize seismic ground shaking effects in the event of a major earthquake and ensure that the potential seismic or geologic hazard impacts are not significant. a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

iv. Landslides?

a) iii & iv. Less-than-Significant Impact. See discussion VI.a) i. and ii., above. The project site is in a seismically active region where the potential of seismic-related hazards could occur. However, all school improvements would occur within the existing school property, which has a low potential for ground failure because the site has been previously graded and developed. In addition, design and construction of all project elements would comply with the applicable seismic-safety development requirements to minimize seismic ground shaking effects and ensure that potential seismic or geologic hazard impacts are not significant. b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

Less-than-Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed school improvements, including creation of the joint-use field, would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Soils under the school site are classified as Urban Land for the entirety of the campus (USDA 2015). These have been altered through cut and fill operations for development and have low erodibility within development areas (USDA 1973). Erosion potential in urban lands would be considered relatively low. All construction activities would occur within the existing developed campus and, therefore, would not result in substantial soil erosion. In addition, the site is relatively level, limiting the opportunity for rapid stormwater runoff, which would exacerbate erosion potential. Impacts would, therefore, be less than significant.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project April 2015 3-17 Initial Study ICF 00134.15

San Diego Unified School District Environmental Checklist 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 an onsite or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?

c & d) Less-than-Significant Impact. Significant impacts associated with unstable soil, including expansive soils, on- or off-site lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse are not anticipated to occur. The terrain of the project site and surrounding area is currently developed, relatively level, and considered to have neutral or favorable geologic structure (City of San Diego 2008). Soils that underlie the site are classified as Las Flores-Urban land complex where the likelihood of liquefaction is low to moderate considering the moderate quantity of sand in these soils (USDA 2012). In addition, the San Diego County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies the project site as an area with no liquefaction risks (County of San Diego 2010). Also, because of previous on-site grading activities, the potential for near-surface expansive soils at the project site is considered low. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems in areas where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

No Impact. Implementation of the project would not result in any impacts regarding inadequate soils to support septic systems. Audubon K–8 School uses the existing sewer system for the disposal of wastewater, and would not use septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, there would be no impact.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project April 2015 3-18 Initial Study ICF 00134.15

San Diego Unified School District Environmental Checklist

Less-than- Significant Potentially Impact with Less-than- Significant Mitigation Significant No VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Discussion:

Would the project: a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

Less-than-Significant Impact. California’s Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, codified the state’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions target by requiring the state’s global warming emissions to be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. The State CEQA Guidelines do not prescribe a particular threshold of significance or method for determining significance of GHG emissions in CEQA documents, but instead defer adoption of CEQA thresholds to the lead agency. Although the District has not yet formally adopted thresholds for GHG impacts under CEQA, the County of San Diego has adopted a numeric threshold of 2,500 metric tons of carbon dioxide 2 equivalent (MTCO2e) for land use development projects (County of San Diego 2013). Additionally, the City of San Diego has recently drafted a similar numeric threshold of 2,500 MTCO2e for land use development projects (City of San Diego 2013).

Project construction activities would contribute GHG emissions as a result of off-road diesel equipment exhaust and emissions from employee, material delivery, and haul truck travel. Primary emissions would occur as carbon dioxide (CO2) from gasoline and diesel combustion, with more limited vehicle tailpipe emissions of nitrous oxide and methane, along with other GHG emissions related to vehicle cooling systems. As discussed in III.a–c, construction activities would likely be minimal and sources of emissions would cease once construction has terminated. Operation of the proposed project would be similar to existing conditions and would not result in new sources of space and energy use, water use, or waste production over existing uses. The project would not change land uses, nor would it increase student population, which would result in no increases in motor vehicle trips to the project site. As such, it is anticipated that combined construction and operational emissions that would result with implementation of the proposed project would be minimal and far below the City’s interim or County’s adopted thresholds of significance. Therefore, impacts for this issue would be less than significant.

2 CO2 equivalent (CO2e) is a measurement used to account for the fact that different GHGs have different global warming potentials based on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. For example, 1 ton of methane has the same contribution to the greenhouse effect as approximately 25 tons of CO2 on a 100-year timescale, making methane a much more potent GHG than CO2.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project April 2015 3-19 Initial Study ICF 00134.15

San Diego Unified School District Environmental Checklist b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Less-than-Significant Impact. As mentioned in VII.a, the District has yet to adopt a qualified plan, policy, or regulation to reduce GHG emissions. Therefore, the most applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions is Assembly Bill (AB) 32, which codified the state’s GHG emissions reduction targets for the future. CARB adopted the AB 32 Scoping Plan as a framework for achieving AB 32. The Scoping Plan outlines a series of technologically feasible and cost-effective measures to reduce statewide GHG emissions. These strategies are geared toward sectors and activities that generate significant amounts of GHGs. For example, the majority of measures address building energy, waste and wastewater generation, goods movement, on-road transportation, water usage, and high global warming potential gases. Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Construction of the proposed project would be short term in nature, and emissions are not anticipated to exceed any proposed threshold throughout the state. In addition, long-term project operations would not generate any new project traffic and would result in no increase in indirect energy consumption related to electricity, water, wastewater, or solid waste. Therefore, impacts for this issue would be less than significant.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project April 2015 3-20 Initial Study ICF 00134.15

San Diego Unified School District Environmental Checklist

Less-than- Significant Potentially Impact with Less-than- Significant Mitigation Significant No VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or involve handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. Be located within an airport land use plan area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, be within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, and result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. Be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project April 2015 3-21 Initial Study ICF 00134.15

San Diego Unified School District Environmental Checklist

Discussion

Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or involve handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

a, b, & c) Less-than-Significant Impact. Construction activities related to the proposed modernization project, including expansion of the administration building, would require the use of typical materials associated with construction activities (e.g., diesel fuel, gasoline, oil, hydraulic fluid, engine exhaust, solvent for welding PVC, asphalt and binders, and paint). Any hazardous materials used during project construction would be transported, used, and stored in accordance with state and federal regulations regarding hazardous materials. Also, handling of any hazardous materials disturbed during the expansion and remodeling activities at the administration building would comply with state and federal regulations pertaining to the abatement of hazardous materials, including asbestos-containing material (ACM) and/or lead-based paint (LBP), as the age of the administration building suggests the potential for ACM and LBP to have been used in its construction. Federal and state laws pertaining to LBP and ACM would apply to the project and would require specific actions and measures to be completed to address issues related to the potential for hazardous materials to be located on site. For instance, Rule 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1926, outlines LBP assessment and removal requirements.

The modernization activities would not change ongoing operations at the K–8 school. The routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials used on the school site would be conducted in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations regarding hazardous materials. For instance, installation of the food service-related project components (e.g., grease traps) would require compliance with the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health and the City of San Diego’s Food Establishment Wastewater Discharge Program. Therefore, construction and operational impacts for these issues would be less than significant. d. Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites that complied 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. The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List is a planning document used by the state, local agencies, and developers to comply with CEQA requirements in providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. Based on a review of the Cortese list data resources (Department of Toxic Substances Control [DTSC] EnviroStor database; DTSC corrective action sites; leaking underground storage tank sites from State Water Resources Control Board [SWRCB] GeoTracker database; solid waste disposal sites identified by SWRCB with waste constituents above hazardous waste levels outside the waste management unit; and “Active” cease and desist orders and cleanup abatement orders from SWRCB), the project site is not listed on a site containing hazardous waste and substances. Therefore, no impact is identified for this issue area.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project April 2015 3-22 Initial Study ICF 00134.15

San Diego Unified School District Environmental Checklist e. For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. Be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

e & f) No Impact. The Audubon K–8 School site is not within 2 miles of a public or private airport facility. The airport closest to the K–8 school, San Diego International Airport, is about 8.6 miles to the northwest. Furthermore, the K–8 school site is not within the boundaries of the Airport Influence Area of San Diego International Airport, which is administered by the Airport Land Use Commission (Airport Land Use Commission 2014). Also, there are no private airstrips within the vicinity of the project site. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with the Airport Land Use Commission or any other applicable rules and regulations as they pertain to airports and airport safety, and no impacts would result upon implementation of the proposed project. g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

Less-than-Significant Impact. Emergency management services are overseen by the San Diego Fire-Rescue Department, and include responses to earthquakes, floods, or terrorist acts. SDUSD also maintains a Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan that addresses multiple hazards, including earthquakes, floods, wildfire, landslides, and tsunamis.

Access to the Audubon K–8 School site for emergency vehicles is provided along Bonsall Street and internal circulation is provided via the existing fire lane. Construction activities would occur within the project site and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to the K–8 school. After construction of the project, emergency access to the site would remain similar to the existing condition described above. As a result, implementation of the proposed project would not impair or physically interfere with an emergency response and impacts are considered to be less than significant. 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?

Less-than-Significant Impact. The project site is within an urban developed area and not within an identified wildland fire hazard area. As identified by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) Map, the project site is listed as a Non- VHFHSZ (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 2007). The nearest VHFHSZ is about 2 miles southeast of the project site near the Sweetwater Reservoir. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death from wildfires, and impacts would be less than significant.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project April 2015 3-23 Initial Study ICF 00134.15

San Diego Unified School District Environmental Checklist

Less-than- Significant Potentially Impact with Less-than- Significant Mitigation Significant No IX. Hydrology and Water Quality Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, resulting in a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding onsite or offsite? e. Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j. Contribute to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project April 2015 3-24 Initial Study ICF 00134.15

San Diego Unified School District Environmental Checklist

Discussion

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

f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

a & f) Less-than-Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed school modernization improvements would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. During construction, short-term water quality impacts associated with increased erosion could occur; however, the project would implement best management practices (BMPs), as required by the local Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, to minimize erosion effects. Implementation of these construction BMPs would ensure that significant water quality impacts during construction would not occur. Therefore, impacts associated with water quality standards or waste discharge requirements would be less than significant.

b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, resulting in a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

No Impact. The project would not affect groundwater resources. The K–8 school is currently serviced by the City of San Diego Water Utilities Department and does not propose to use groundwater. Therefore, there would be no impacts associated with this criterion.

c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite?

d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding onsite or offsite?

c & d) Less-than-Significant Impact. The project would not substantially alter the site’s existing drainage pattern in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation, or increase the amount of surface runoff. The project site has been previously graded and is essentially flat. The proposed construction activities to improve existing school facilities would have minimal disturbance to the site. The proposed project would result in a minimal increase (i.e., less than 1 acre) of impervious surface with the expansion of the parking lot and administration building. Therefore, impacts associated with these issues would be less than significant.

e. Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would result in less than 1 acre of increased impervious surface area and is not expected to create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of the existing stormwater drainage system that serves the project site. Drainage from the site would continue to be directed to the existing storm drain system. Also, as discussed above, the project would be required to implement construction and post-construction BMPs that would ensure that significant water quality impacts related to surface runoff would not occur. Therefore, the amount of runoff volume entering the storm drain system would not create demand for new storm water facilities and would not result in a substantial new source of polluted runoff. Consequently, impacts would be less than significant.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project April 2015 3-25 Initial Study ICF 00134.15

San Diego Unified School District Environmental Checklist

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

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

g & h) No Impact. As shown by flood maps provided by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency, the school property is not within a 100-year flood zone (Federal Emergency Management Agency 1997). The proposed project would involve modernization of an existing facility and would not place housing or structures within a 100-year flood hazard area. Therefore, there would be no impact associated with these issues.

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. Implementation of the proposed school improvements would not expose people or structures to significant risks involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. Sweetwater Reservoir is the closest body of water to the project site (1.8 miles south). However, the elevation of the project site project site (450 feet) is substantially higher than the elevation of Sweetwater Reservoir (242 feet) (Google Earth 2015a, 2015b). Additionally, the project site is not within the dam inundation area of Sweetwater Reservoir (County of San Diego 2010). As such, there would be no impact.

j. Contribute to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

No Impact. A seiche is a standing wave in an enclosed or partially enclosed body of water. As discussed in IX.i. above, the project site is 1.8 miles away from and on a higher elevation than Sweetwater Reservoir and is not within the dam inundation area of the reservoir. Therefore, the project site is not at risk for inundation by a seiche. The project site is also approximately 8 miles east of the Pacific Ocean and is not within an area at risk for tsunami inundation (County of San Diego 2010). Furthermore, the project site and surrounding area are relatively flat and there are no landforms in the project vicinity that could produce mudflows. In addition, as discussed above under Section VI, Geology and Soils, the project site is not in an area that susceptible to landslides and would not contribute to a mudflow. Therefore, there are no impacts related to this criterion.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project April 2015 3-26 Initial Study ICF 00134.15

San Diego Unified School District Environmental Checklist

Less-than- Significant Potentially Impact with Less-than- Significant Mitigation Significant No X. Land Use and Planning Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, a general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

Discussion

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

a & b) No Impact. The proposed modernization improvements would be contained within the existing property boundaries and would not physically divide an established community. In addition, the existing land use designation and zoning allow for the improvements that would occur under the proposed project and, as such, the project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan or policy adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated to occur. c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

No Impact. Implementation of the project would not conflict with any applicable habitat or natural community conservation plan. The project is in an area currently developed as an existing school campus in a highly urbanized area. The project area is completely surrounded by existing development and no sensitive habitat exists within or surrounding the project site. Lastly, no habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans are in place or applicable to the project area. Therefore, there would be no impact.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project April 2015 3-27 Initial Study ICF 00134.15

San Diego Unified School District Environmental Checklist

Less-than- Significant Potentially Impact with Less-than- Significant Mitigation Significant No XI. Mineral Resources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?

Discussion

Would the project: a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?

a & b) No Impact. The proposed project involves the modernization of an existing school site and there is no mineral extraction or other mining operations within the project site. In addition, the District does not intend to remove the school and, therefore, the site would not be available for mineral extraction activities in the future. Therefore, there would be no impact.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project April 2015 3-28 Initial Study ICF 00134.15

San Diego Unified School District Environmental Checklist

Less-than- Significant Potentially Impact with Less-than- Significant Mitigation Significant No XII. Noise Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a. Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in a local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c. Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d. Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e. Be located within an airport land use plan area, or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport and expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. Be located in the vicinity of a private airstrip and expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

Discussion

Would the project: a. Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in a local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? c. Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d. Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

a, c, & d) Less-than-Significant Impact. Construction and operation of the proposed project would result in less-than-significant noise impacts. The modernization of the existing K–8 school site would involve minor construction activities including creation of a joint-use field, installation of fencing and security lighting and air conditioning, improvement to school accessibility, renovation of restrooms, replacement of kitchen fixtures, replacement of deteriorating site infrastructure, expansion of the administration building, and upgrades to performance spaces. Noise levels associated with these activities would be in compliance with the City of San Diego CEQA Significance Determination Thresholds, which state that:

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project April 2015 3-29 Initial Study ICF 00134.15

San Diego Unified School District Environmental Checklist

Temporary construction noise which exceeds 75 dB(A) Leq at a sensitive receptor would be considered significant. Construction noise levels measured at or beyond the property line of any property zoned residential shall not exceed an average sound level greater than 75-decibels (dB) during the 12-hour period from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. In addition, construction activity is prohibited between the hours of 7:00 p.m. of any day and 7:00 a.m. of the following day, or on legal holidays as specified in Section 21.04 of the San Diego Municipal Code, with the exception of Columbus Day and Washington’s Birthday, or on Sundays, that would create disturbing, excessive, or offensive noise unless a permit has been applied for and granted beforehand by the Noise Abatement and Control Administration, in conformance with San Diego Municipal Code Section 59.5.0404 (City of San Diego 2011).

Additionally, operations or capacity of the existing school would not be increased with implementation of the project and, therefore, construction and operational noise impacts would be less than significant. b. Expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

Less-than-Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not expose people to excessive ground-borne noise or vibration. Typical construction equipment, such as excavators, backhoes, bulldozers, and hauling trucks, would be used and are not anticipated to create excessive ground-borne noise or vibration. Non-typical heavy machinery that could result in excessive conditions, such as pile drivers, would not be used. Also, operation of the school would not involve activities that create perceptible vibration. Therefore, impacts for this issue would be less than significant. e. Be located within an airport land use plan area, or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport and expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. Be located in the vicinity of a private airstrip and expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

e & f) No Impact. There would be no noise impacts associated with nearby airports. The project site is not within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of a public airport or private airstrip. The airport closest to the K–8 school, San Diego International Airport, is about 8.6 miles to the northwest. Therefore, no impacts associated with this issue would occur.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project April 2015 3-30 Initial Study ICF 00134.15

San Diego Unified School District Environmental Checklist

Less-than- Significant Potentially Impact with Less-than- Significant Mitigation Significant No XIII. Population and Housing Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace a substantial number of existing housing units, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace a substantial number of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Discussion

Would the project: a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace a substantial number of existing housing units, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace a substantial number of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

a–c) No Impact. The project site is an existing school property in a built-out urbanized community. The proposed project would not involve the demolition or construction of any new housing or businesses, and would not extend roads or other infrastructure. Under the proposed project, existing school facilities would be renovated and circulation and access would be improved. These upgrades would not increase the capacity or operations of the existing K–8 school, and would not induce substantial population growth. Therefore, there impacts associated with these issues would not occur.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project April 2015 3-31 Initial Study ICF 00134.15

San Diego Unified School District Environmental Checklist

Less-than- Significant Potentially Impact with Less-than- Significant Mitigation Significant No XIV. Public Services Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or a 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 following public services: 1. Fire protection? 2. Police protection? 3. Schools? 4. Parks? 5. Other public facilities?

Discussion a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with: fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities?

No Impact. The proposed project is the modernization of an existing school site, including improvements intended to improve the safety and security of the students and facility, and would not require additional police, fire, or other public service resources. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts on public services. Implementation of the project would not increase the capacity or operations of the existing school; therefore, no additional public services would be required for the project. As such, there would be no impacts on public services.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project April 2015 3-32 Initial Study ICF 00134.15

San Diego Unified School District Environmental Checklist

Less-than- Significant Potentially Impact with Less-than- Significant Mitigation Significant No XV. Recreation Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

Discussion a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

a & b) Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would include creation of a joint-use field, which would provide an additional recreational resource for the community. The creation of the joint-use field would involve minimal construction activities and would result in minimal physical effects on the environment that have been documented throughout this Initial Study. Implementation of the project would not increase the student capacity or school operations of the existing school, and, therefore, would not generate additional demand for recreational uses in the project area. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project April 2015 3-33 Initial Study ICF 00134.15

San Diego Unified School District Environmental Checklist

Less-than- Significant Potentially Impact with Less-than- Significant Mitigation Significant No XVI. Transportation and Traffic Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and 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? 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? 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? d. Substantially increase hazards because of a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

Discussion

Would the project: a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and 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? 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?

a & b) Less-than-Significant Impact. The school modernization project would not affect existing traffic or conflict with an applicable traffic plan. Because the proposed improvements would not

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project April 2015 3-34 Initial Study ICF 00134.15

San Diego Unified School District Environmental Checklist

increase capacity of the school, existing traffic levels associated with drop-off or pick-up and existing traffic patterns in the surrounding area would not be affected.

No Impact. The proposed project would involve minor modifications to an existing K–8 school that is more than 8 miles from the nearest airport and would not affect existing air traffic patterns. Therefore, there would be no impact. d. Substantially increase hazards because of a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

d–f) No Impact. The project would not increase hazards due to design features, result in inadequate emergency access, or conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. The proposed project would improve safety and circulation at the school site through modifications to the student drop-off and pick-up areas. Emergency access routes within and surrounding the project site would not be altered by the proposed project. Construction activities would result in a small and temporary increase in construction vehicles traveling to and from the project site, but this increase in traffic would not interfere with emergency access in the project area. Furthermore, the project would not increase student capacity or operational use such that existing emergency access routes would be affected by increased traffic generation. Therefore, there would be no impacts related to these issues.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project April 2015 3-35 Initial Study ICF 00134.15

San Diego Unified School District Environmental Checklist

Less-than- Significant Potentially Impact with Less-than- Significant Mitigation Significant No XVII. Utilities and Service Systems Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or would new or expanded entitlements be needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

Discussion

Would the project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

a, b, and e) No Impact. The proposed project would not exceed applicable wastewater treatment requirements or result in the expansion or construction of wastewater treatment facilities. The project would not result in an increase in student capacity or school operations that could necessitate greater demand for this service. Therefore, the need for wastewater treatment would

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project April 2015 3-36 Initial Study ICF 00134.15

San Diego Unified School District Environmental Checklist

not change from existing conditions as a result of the proposed project. Impacts on wastewater service would not occur. c. Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. Improvements proposed as part of the project would upgrade or replace existing school facilities and would only result in a minimal increase in runoff that could be accommodated by the existing stormwater drainage facilities. Therefore, impacts on stormwater facilities would be less than significant. d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or would new or expanded entitlements be needed?

Less-than-Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not increase capacity or operation of the existing school and, therefore, would not result in an increased demand on potable water supplies. The proposed project would involve development of a new joint-use field in an area that is currently covered by a gravel lot. The maintenance of the new joint-use field could result in a minimal increase in water use at the project site. However, irrigation for this joint-use field would be provided by reclaimed water sources and would not result in a substantial new demand on existing water supplies. Therefore, less-than-significant impacts on water supplies would occur. f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

f & g) Less-than-Significant Impact. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would result in a temporary increase in the amount of solid waste generated at the project site; however, per local and state requirements, including the requirements of the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), a portion of this waste would be recycled. In addition, because the proposed project would not increase the existing capacity of the school, solid waste generated during operation of the proposed project would not increase over existing conditions. Implementation of the project would not result in significant impacts on solid waste, and solid waste generated by the school would continue to be served by a permitted landfill with sufficient capacity to accommodate the project’s disposal needs. Additionally, the school would continue to comply with all applicable regulations associated with solid waste. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project April 2015 3-37 Initial Study ICF 00134.15

San Diego Unified School District Environmental Checklist

Less-than- Significant Potentially Impact with Less-than- Significant Mitigation Significant No XVIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance Impact Incorporated Impact 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, substantially 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? b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c. Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Discussion 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, substantially 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? b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)

a & b) Less-than-Significant Impact. As discussed above in Sections IV and V, the proposed project would not degrade the quality of the environment or significantly affect biological or cultural resources. The project’s impacts would not add appreciably to any existing or foreseeable future significant cumulative impact. Incremental impacts, if any, would be negligible and undetectable. c. Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Less-than-Significant Impact. The analysis in this document shows that the prosed project would have no lasting significant adverse effects.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project April 2015 3-38 Initial Study ICF 00134.15

Chapter 4 References

Project Description San Diego Unified School District (SDUSD). 2011. Long-Range Facility Master Plan. Site Data Evaluation for Audubon School. Available: http://www.sandi.net/cms/lib/CA01001235/Centricity/Domain/82/Long_Range_Facilities_Ma ster_Plan/Section_6_DataSheets_ES/ALL_A_E_DataSheets_ES_2.pdf. Accessed March 25, 2015.

San Diego Unified School District (SDUSD). 2015. School Accountability Report Card, Audubon K–8 School. Summary Report, Issued Spring 2015 for Academic Year 2013–14. Available: http://www.sandi.net/cms/lib/CA01001235/Centricity/Domain/121/R_R/Reports/sarc/2014 -15/SARC009short.pdf. Accessed March 25, 2015.

Aesthetics California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. Officially Designated State Highways. Available: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/schwy.htm. Accessed March 26, 2015.

Agricultural Resources California Department of Conservation. 2010. California Important Farmland Finder. Available: http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/ciff/ciff.html. Accessed March 26, 2015.

California Department of Conservation. 2013. San Diego County Williamson Act 2013/2014. Available: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca. Accessed March 26, 2015.

Air Quality California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2014. Area Designations Maps / State and National. August. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. Accessed April 2, 2015.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2015. Criteria Pollutant Nonattainment Summary Report. January. Available: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ancl3.html. Accessed April 2, 2015.

Biological Resources City of San Diego. 1997. City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan. Published in March 1997. Prepared by the City of San Diego Community and Economic Development Department. Available:

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project April 2015 4-1 Initial Study ICF 00134.15

San Diego Unified School District Environmental Checklist

http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/programs/mscp/pdf/subareafullversion.pdf. Accessed March 31, 2015.

Geology and Soils City of San Diego. 2008. City of San Diego General Plan. Adopted by the Council of the City of San Diego on March 10, 2008. Available: http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/genplan/pdf/generalplan/adoptedtoc.pdf. Accessed March 31, 2015.

County of San Diego. 2010. Multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Available: http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/oes/emergency_management/oes_jl_mitplan.html. Accessed April 2, 2015.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1973. Soil Survey for the San Diego Area, California. Prepared by the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service. Issued in December 1973. Available: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MANUSCRIPTS/california/CA638/0/part1.pdf. Accessed March 30, 2015.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2012. Natural Resource Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey. Available: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed April 2, 2015.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2015. Web Soil Survey. Available: http://websoilsurveysc.egov.usda/gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed March 31, 2015.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions City of San Diego. 2013. Draft Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gas Emissions. March. Available: http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/genplan/cap/pdf/ghg_significance_thresholds_032213.pdf. Accessed April 2, 2015.

County of San Diego. 2013. Guidelines for Determining Significance – Climate Change. November. Available: http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/dplu/advance/climateactionplan.html. Accessed April 2, 2015.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials Airport Land Use Commission. 2014. San Diego International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Prepared by the Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Adopted April 3, 2014 and Amended May 1, 2014. Available : http://www.san.org/Airport-Projects/Land-Use-Compatibility#San-Diego- International-Airport-Approved-Apr-3-2014-398. Accessed March 31, 2015.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2007. Draft Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA for San Diego County. Published September 17. Available:

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project April 2015 4-2 Initial Study ICF 00134.15

San Diego Unified School District Environmental Checklist

http://frap.fire.ca.gov/webdata/maps/san_diego/fhszl06_1_map.37.pdf. Accessed March 31, 2015

Hydrology and Water Quality County of San Diego. 2010. Multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Available: http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/oes/emergency_management/oes_jl_mitplan.html. Accessed April 2, 2015.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1997. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). June 19, 1997. Map Number: 06073C1910G. Available: http://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=8111%20San%20Vicente%20Street%20Sa n%20Diego%20. Accessed March 31, 2015.

Google Earth. 2015a. Aerial Image. Reviewed on March 31, 2015.

Google Earth. 2015b. Aerial Image. Reviewed on March 31, 2015.

Noise City of San Diego. 2011. California Environmental Quality Act Significance Determination Thresholds. City of San Diego Development Services Department. January. Available: http://www.sandiego.gov/development-services/pdf/news/sdtceqa.pdf. Accessed April 2, 2015.

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project April 2015 4-3 Initial Study ICF 00134.15

Chapter 5 List of Preparers

San Diego Unified School District

Alonso Casas Facilities Development Project Manager

Kathryn Ferrell CEQA Project Manager

ICF International

Devon Muto Project Director

Aaron Brownwood Project Manager

Kelly Ross CEQA Planner, Author

Liane Chen CEQA Planner, Author

Timothy Yates Historian

Karolina Chmiel Archaeologist

Audubon K–8 School Modernization Project April 2015 5-1 Initial Study ICF 00134.15

Appendix B Cultural Resources Technical Memo

Date: June 23, 2015

To: Kathryn Ferrell San Diego Unified School District Maintenance and Operations Center 4860 Ruffner Street San Diego, CA 92111-1522

From: Timothy Yates, PhD, Historian/Architectural Historian Karolina Chmiel, M.A., Archaeologist

Subject: Cultural Resources Evaluation of Audubon K–8 School

Audubon K–8 School Whole Site Modernization Project The original portion of Audubon K–8 School was constructed in 1955. The school is currently 60 years of age, and has therefore surpassed the standard 45-year age threshold for consideration as a potential historical resource when subject to potential impacts from a project requiring CEQA compliance. The Audubon K–8 School Whole Site Modernization Project is such a project.

Student Health, Safety, and Security. An emergency communications system would be installed, in addition to 10-foot high security fencing and lighting, to secure the site against vandals and intruders. As part of the project, student drop-off and pick-up areas for school buses and automobiles along the northern part of the campus would be improved to increase student safety. Improvements would involve cutting sidewalk and stripping.

School Accessibility and Code Compliance. Proposition S includes provisions to upgrade school sites to achieve compliance with the ADA Titles I and II. Replacement of non-compliant ADA ramps and installation of ADA signage and a path of travel at the proposed parking and joint-use field would occur as part of the project.

Interior Remodeling. The proposed project includes a proposal to remodel restrooms, interactive classrooms, and add sink and grease traps to the kitchen area. HVAC in classrooms and some

Audubon K–8 School Cultural Resources Evaluation, June 23, 2015

portables involving new rooftop mechanical units and electrical upgrades also would occur. The existing parking lot on the southwestern corner of the school would be expanded to the east to include an additional 21 spaces.

Summary of Findings This document evaluates the archaeological and paleontological sensitivity of Audubon K–8 School. It also evaluates the school’s eligibility for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources in order to determine if it qualifies as a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. The analysis below indicates that Audubon K–8 School has low archaeological sensitivity and high paleontological sensitivity should the proposed ground-disturbing activities associated with the project involve excavation into previously undisturbed deposits. The finding of the historical resource evaluation is that the original 1955 portion of Audubon K–8 School appears to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, at the local level of significance, as the work of San Diego master architect Samuel W. Hamill, and as an excellent example of Mid-Century Modern school architecture and planning. California Department of Recreation (DPR) 523A and 523B forms documenting the evaluation of the school are included in Attachment 2, and will be filed with the South Coastal Information Center. An analysis of project impacts and cultural resource management recommendations are provided below the historical resource evaluation portion of this document.

Regulatory Setting The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires public agencies to evaluate the implications of their project(s) on the environment and includes significant historical resources as part of the environment.

According to CEQA, a project that causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource or a unique archaeological resource has a significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines 15064.5, Pub. Res. Code section 21083.2). CEQA defines a substantial adverse change as:

 Physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired; or

 Demolition or material alteration of the physical characteristics that convey the resource’s historical significance and justify its designation as a historical resource

Public agencies must treat any cultural resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant (Title 14 CCR, Section 15064.5). A historic resource is considered significant if it meets the definition of historical resource or unique archaeological resource.

The term historical resource includes, but is not limited to any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California (Public Resource Code PRC 5020.1(j)). Historical resources may be designated as such through three different processes:

Audubon K–8 School Cultural Resources Evaluation, June 23, 2015

1. Official designation or recognition by a local government pursuant to local ordinance or resolution (PRC 5020.1(k)) 2. A local survey conducted pursuant to PRC 5024.1(g) 3. The property is listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (PRC 5024.1(d)(1)) The process for identifying historical resources is typically accomplished by applying the criteria for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (Title 14 CCR, Section 4852), which states that a historical resource must be significant at the local, state, or national level under one or more of the following four criteria: 1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage. 2. It is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. 3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values. 4. It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. To be considered a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA, the resource must also have integrity, which is the authenticity of a resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance.

Resources, therefore, must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. Integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. It must also be judged with reference to the particular criteria under which a resource is eligible for listing in the CRHR (California Code of Regulations title 14, Section 4852(c)).

Bond funded improvements of active SDUSD schools, including Whole Site Modernization, are not subject to approval by the City of San Diego’s Historical Resources Board. Consequently, the significance criteria outlined in the Historical Resources Guidelines of the City of San Diego’s Land Development Manual are not applied in this document, and Audubon K–8 School is not evaluated for local designation.

Archaeology and Paleontology

Record Search Results ICF obtained a cultural resources record search from the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC). The South Coastal Information Center (SCIC) is the local repository acting on behalf of the State Office of Historic Preservation’s California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS). This record search was conducted to determine if any cultural resources have been previously recorded within or in close proximity to the Audubon K–8 School campus. The SCIC reviewed their digitized records to:

• Identify previously recorded archaeological sites within the record search limits

• Identify any previously conducted cultural resources studies

• Provide historical maps of the area, and

• Provide copies of all pertinent site record forms

Audubon K–8 School Cultural Resources Evaluation, June 23, 2015

The SCIC reported results of the record search on October 30, 2014. The record search results indicated that two cultural resources studies have been previously conducted in the project area. However, these studies consisted of general overviews and did not include surveys. The record search also indicated that no prehistoric archaeological sites have been previously recorded within or adjacent to the school. The school property is situated on a mesa top with the closest drainage located approximately one mile south. Although drainages are generally considered sensitive for cultural resources, archaeological sites associated with drainages are typically located on terraces above and in closer proximity to drainages. Additionally, while the confluence of two streams is considered an area of high potential archaeological sensitivity, the school property is not situated on this type of geographic feature. Finally, construction of the school likely included extensive surface grading, which would have dramatically altered the ground surface, potentially as deep as a few feet below the ground surface. Therefore the prehistoric archaeological sensitivity of the school property is assumed to be low.

Soil survey maps indicate that the area is composed of “Las Flores-Urban Land,” i.e., “the landscape has been altered through cut and fill operations and leveled for building sites” (Bowman 1973:61). Geologic mapping shows the area of Audubon K–8 School to be underlain by the Otay Formation (Kennedy and Tan 2005), which is considered highly sensitive fossil-bearing strata (City of San Diego 2007A). Whether paleontological monitoring during subsurface excavations should be conducted at Audubon K–8 School would depend on how deep construction impacts might occur, or more accurately, whether any proposed ground-disturbing activities associated with the proposed project would involve excavation into previously undisturbed deposits. This also holds true for the potential discovery of buried archaeological remains during construction.

Audubon K–8 School is located beyond the range of historic-period Sanborn fire insurance map coverage for San Diego. However, available historic USGS topographic maps provide evidence of the site’s history prior the construction of the school in 1955. Topographic maps based on 1902 and 1938-39 surveys indicate that no major buildings or structures stood within or in the vicinity of the school property during those years. The 1953 aerial photograph of the school site is available at historicaerials.com. It shows the beginnings of grading and construction of Audubon K–8 School and the surrounding neighborhood (NETR 1953; USGS 1904, 1943, 1953). This evidence indicates that the potential for historic archaeological resources is low.

In summary, the potential for subsurface historic and prehistoric archaeological remains to be present within the Audubon K–8 School property appears to be low. It does appear, however, that the property has the potential contain subsurface paleontological remains in previously undisturbed sediments. Historical Resource Evaluation

Description Audubon K–8 School occupies an approximately 11-acre property located in the City of San Diego’s Skyline-Paradise Hills community planning area. The school fronts San Vicente Street and is bordered on the west by Bonsall Street. Landscaping in the form of lawns, trees, and concrete walkways separates the buildings from San Vicente and Bonsall Streets. Audubon K–8 School’s original 1955 buildings form an L-shaped complex, the northwest corner of which is situated near

Audubon K–8 School Cultural Resources Evaluation, June 23, 2015

the corner of San Vicente and Bonsall Streets. The complex also includes two buildings constructed after 1955, and portable buildings.

For the purposes of this evaluation, the school’s 1955 buildings are named based on the 1954 as- built plans. They include: Building A, which faces San Vicente Street and contains (moving west to east) the administration wing, a classroom and mechanical room, an auditorium-cafeteria space, and a kitchen; Classroom Buildings B, C, and D, which are aligned parallel to Bonsall Street; and the Kindergarten Building, which is located immediately east of Building A. East of the Kindergarten Building is a Classroom Addition constructed in 1957, and a Library Building constructed in 2004 is situated immediately southeast of Classroom Building C. Rows of portable buildings containing 17 classrooms , which are aligned differently than portables present at the site in 1955, are located west and south of Classroom Building C and east of the Library. The school’s layout is illustrated in the site map on page 8 below. Photographs referenced parenthetically in the description appear below beginning on page 9.

Audubon K–8 School’s original 1955 complex embodies Mid-Century Modern school architecture and planning. Reflecting Modernist indoor-outdoor design principles, such schools are characterized by multiple, generally modest-sized buildings spread across space, with interstitial outdoor circulation corridors and landscaped areas (as opposed to larger site-dominating single buildings or several large buildings, which was typical of pre-World War II schools); classrooms and other rooms with at least one exterior wall dominated by a large rectangular bank of stacked windows; a predominance of low-slung buildings with broadly projecting roof overhangs; and little or no “decoration” in the traditional sense, particularly direct decorative references to earlier historic architecture.

The largest building within Audubon K–8 School’s original 1955 complex is Building A, which consists of multiple rectilinear volumes arranged in an irregular plan (Photographs 1-5, 10-11). Slightly textured stucco covers most of the building’s exterior wall surfaces. The administration wing projects northward at the west end of Building A’s plan (Photographs 1-3). It features an extremely low-pitched shed roof with broadly overhanging eaves and canted fascia, as well as original steel, fixed, awning, or hopper windows arranged in large square-shaped banks or ribbons, including wrapping corner windows. Perpendicularly projecting wall elements help support the roof overhang at the administration wing’s east and north exterior walls (Photograph 3). At the north side, the projecting wall element forms the end of a planter that, like the window at that location, wraps around the northeast corner of the administration wing adjacent to a concrete walkway that extends along the contour of the building’s north side. The administration wing’s main office entry at Building A’s west elevation is secured by an institutional-grade door with glazing and features a transom and wood-frame fixed sidelights on its north side (Photograph 2). An upper ribbon of original steel-frame windows with hopper units extends to the south from the entry. The main office entrance is approached via a concrete walkway flanked by non-original steel railing.

The walkway extends south along the west elevation of Building A under an attached sheltering canopy with canted fascia and stucco-clad rectangular slab “column” supports at the outer edges, which form an arcade that marks the school’s main entrance area (Photographs 1 and 6). The arcade extends west at a right angle and continues along the north side of Building D. Whereas the rectangular support slabs are positioned flush to the edge of the circulation path along the west

Audubon K–8 School Cultural Resources Evaluation, June 23, 2015

elevation of Building A, they are positioned perpendicular to Building D and the edge of the circulation path extending from Building A to the north side of Building D (Photographs 1 and 6).

The administration wing of Building A is connected to a rectilinear volume containing a classroom and a mechanical room with a flat roof and a large rectangular bank of original steel awning and fixed windows at the north elevation (Photographs 3-4). East of the classroom and mechanical room, Building A’s largest volume contains the auditorium-cafeteria, which has a flat roof with a low parapet and a small projection at the west end topped with a steel pipe chimney (Photographs 4-5). A small utility addition secured by non-original fence extends west from the auditorium-cafeteria volume at the north elevation near the large bank of classroom windows (photograph 4). A lengthy, moderately projecting, cantilevered overhang above runs along the north elevation of the auditorium-cafeteria volume over manicured hedges, reinforcing the building’s horizontal emphasis at its most vertically prominent volume. The building’s easternmost, one-story rectangular volume projects east and slightly north from auditorium-cafeteria volume and contains the school’s kitchen (Photograph 5). A canted canopy projection with canted fascia shelters an entry with a two-leaf institutional-grade door at the east end of the auditorium-cafeteria along the north elevation (Photographs 4-5). The west end of the canted canopy has three steel pipe-column supports connected at the tops by what appears to be a steel panel. Underneath the east end of this canopy is a wedge-shaped wall projection with a decorative grid pattern of scored plaster and an entry secured by a single-leaf institutional-grade door. The building’s east elevation at the kitchen has multiple entries with institutional-grade doors and original steel frame windows, some of them awning windows. A projecting canopy with steel pipe-column supports shelters windows and entries across the entire south elevation, which faces an expansive asphalt-paved playground and a non-original lunch shelter (Photographs 10-11). Windows at the south elevation are limited to a ribbon of original steel-frame units fronted by what appear to be non-original steel security screens at the mechanical room, and a large rectangular bank of original steel-frame windows at the kitchen. Multiple entries along the south elevation are secured by single- or two-leaf institutional-grade doors. A non-original concrete ramp with steel railing leads to the west end of the building at the south elevation.

Buildings B, C, and D contain classrooms and are designed similarly (Photographs 6-9). They have rectangular plans, slightly textured stucco cladding, low-pitched shed roofs that slope downward to the east. At the east elevations, eaves with canted fascia project broadly to shelter classroom entries secured by institutional grade doors, most with square offset vision lights, as well as ribbons of original steel-frame windows positioned at the tops of walls (Photograph 9). The west elevations feature exceptionally large, continuous banks of original, rectangular steel-frame windows, which extend across interior, classroom-partitioning transverse walls (Photographs 6-8). A louvered shade affixed to Building D’s west roof overhang to block sunlight from classrooms windows does not appear to be original, but may have been installed soon after the building was constructed (Photograph 7). Buildings B and C and Buildings A and B are attached at the roof between circulation corridors that form breezeways. Canopies attached to the west breezeway openings extend to the west and attached to Building D (Photograph 8). Apart from the rectangular stucco- clad slab supports at the school’s main entry area arcade at the west side of Building A and the north side of Building D, the school’s other walkway canopies all have steel pipe-column supports, as well as canted fascia.

Audubon K–8 School Cultural Resources Evaluation, June 23, 2015

The Kindergarten Building is located immediately east of Building A (Photographs 12-14). The canopy at the south elevation of Building A continues to the east and is attached to the south elevation of the Kindergarten Building, where it shelters a pair of original steel-frame windows and several secondary entries with institutional-grade doors (Photograph 12). The Kindergarten Building has an L-shaped plan, slightly textured stucco wall surfaces, and shed roofs with minimal pitch that slope downward toward the building’s front (north) elevation. The eaves have canted edges and overhang moderately at all elevations but the north elevation of the east wing and the west elevation of the north wing, where they project broadly to shelter entries with institutional grade doors that open to the kindergarten play area on the north side of the building, which is enclosed by chain-link fences (Photographs 13-14). Fenestration at the east, north, and west elevations consists of original steel-frame ribbon windows at the upper portion of walls or original large rectangular or square banks of steel-frame windows, some of which appear to be awning units. The large rectangular window bank at the north elevation of the north wing is flanked by two perpendicularly projecting wall elements that may serve as “baffle walls” that block sunlight at certain angles (Photograph 14).

West of the Kindergarten Building is a Classroom Addition building constructed several years after and school’s original buildings and designed differently (Photograph 15-17). The Classroom Addition has slightly textured stucco exterior wall surfaces, an extremely low-pitched gable roof with a monitor, and broadly projecting eave overhangs at all but the east elevation. The projecting eaves feature wood soffits and fascia with canted lower boards attached to supporting beams, and steel pipe-column supports at the outer edges along the north and south elevations (Photograph 16). Classroom fenestration consists of banks of larger rectangular, non-original aluminum windows above rectangular and square fixed wood-frame windows that appear to be original. These are outlined by wood mullions, surrounds, and sills. A vent of vertical louvers is located near the west end of the south elevation. Entries are secured by institutional-grade doors. Large non-original air- conditioning units and ducts are visible atop the roof slopes.

The library immediately southeast of Building C was constructed in 2004 and represents a Post- Modern variation on modernist design (Photograph 18). It has a rectangular plan, shed roof elements of varying pitch, stucco wall cladding, small projecting window shades at the east and south elevations, aluminum-frame fixed or awning windows, and entries approached via concrete ramps with steel railing. The design of the Library addition is sensitively executed with respect to the school’s original buildings, and its location south of the original L-shaped school complex keeps it from impinging on the setting and feeling of the original buildings.

West and south Building C, and south and east of the Library are numerous portable buildings (Photographs 19-21). Most of these are topped by low-pitched shed roofs with moderately projecting eave overhangs at front elevations, which have bands of aluminum-frame windows stacked two high with wood surrounds and mullions, and steel ramps that lead to offset entries with institutional-grade doors (Photograph 19). The rear elevations have ribbons of louvered windows with wood surrounds and mullions positioned just below the roof line (Photograph 20). The northeastern row of portable buildings have extremely low-pitched gable roofs, steel ramps and railing, limited aluminum windows, vertical composite wall cladding, and projecting eaves at the front elevations (Photograph 21).

Audubon K–8 School Cultural Resources Evaluation, June 23, 2015

Audubon K–8 School Site Map

Audubon K–8 School Cultural Resources Evaluation, June 23, 2015

Photograph 1. Main entrance from corner of San Vicente and Bonsall Streets, looking southeast

Photograph 2. West and north elevations of Building A administration wing at main office with portion of campus entry arcade, looking east-southeast

Audubon K–8 School Cultural Resources Evaluation, June 23, 2015

Photograph 3. Building A, administration wing main office at right with view of perpendicularly projecting wall elements, classroom window bank at left near small addition, looking southwest

Photograph 4. Building A, classroom window bank at right, auditorium-cafeteria volume with addition at center and center-left, looking southeast

Audubon K–8 School Cultural Resources Evaluation, June 23, 2015

Photograph 5. Building A, administration wing at far right, auditorium-cafeteria volume at center, kitchen wing at far left, note decorative scored exterior surface under canted canopy at center-left, looking southwest

Photograph 6. Building D and main entry arcade extending from west elevation of Building A to north side of Building D, looking south-southeast

Audubon K–8 School Cultural Resources Evaluation, June 23, 2015

Photograph 7. West and partial south elevations of Building A, looking north-northeast

Photograph 8. West elevation of Buildings B and C, note breezeway opening center right and canopies connecting to Building D, looking southeast

Audubon K–8 School Cultural Resources Evaluation, June 23, 2015

Photograph 9. East elevation of Buildings B and C, note non-original disability ramp and railing, looking southwest

Photograph 10. South elevation of Building A, note non-original lunch shelter at right, looking north

Audubon K–8 School Cultural Resources Evaluation, June 23, 2015

Photograph 11. South elevation of Building A, looking northeast

Photograph 12. South and partial west elevations of Kindergarten Building, looking east-northeast

Audubon K–8 School Cultural Resources Evaluation, June 23, 2015

Photograph 13. East and partial south elevations of Kindergarten building, looking west

Photograph 14. Front of Kindergarten building from San Vicente Street, note perpendicularly projecting wall elements flanking window at right, looking south

Audubon K–8 School Cultural Resources Evaluation, June 23, 2015

Photograph 15. Classroom Addition building east of Kindergarten Building, looking northeast

Photograph 16. South elevation of Classroom Addition building, looking east-northeast

Audubon K–8 School Cultural Resources Evaluation, June 23, 2015

Photograph 17. North elevation of Classroom Addition building, looking east

Photograph 18. Library Addition southeast of Building C, looking southwest

Audubon K–8 School Cultural Resources Evaluation, June 23, 2015

Photograph 19. Front elevation of typical portable buildings, looking south

Photograph 20. Rear elevations of typical portable buildings, looking south-southeast

Audubon K–8 School Cultural Resources Evaluation, June 23, 2015

Photograph 21. More recent northeast portable building east of Library Addition, looking south-southeast

Evaluation Audubon K–8 School’s original buildings (Buildings A, B, C, D and the Kindergarten Building) appear to meet the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) as a historic Mid-Century Modern school complex. None the campus’s other buildings appear to qualify for CRHR listing individually or as contributors to the historic 1955 portion of the school. Research on the history of Audubon K–8 School for this evaluation has included Google searches, consultation of as- built plans on file at the San Diego Unified School District Facilities and Maintenance and Operations Center’s Architectural Archives, and full-text searches of the historical San Diego Union using the Newsbank database available at Geisel Library on the University of California, San Diego campus. Audubon K–8 School has been evaluated with reference to a historic context produced by ICF International and ASM Affiliates for the San Diego Unified School District (SDUSD) titled, “Modern San Diego Public School Development.” This document is included with this report in Attachment 1. A portion of the historic context addressing the post-World War II period of San Diego school development is included here.

Audubon K–8 School Cultural Resources Evaluation, June 23, 2015

1956). Prior to and during World War II, most San Diego schools were developed to serve streetcar suburbs such as La Jolla, Point Loma, Kensington, North Park, and City Heights, or to serve the planned defense-worker community of Linda Vista. During the 1950s, however, the construction of new public school complexes took place mainly in San Diego’s growing new automobile suburbs further from the city’s urban core—Pacific Beach, Bay Park, Clairemont, Serra Mesa, the College and Fairmont areas, and suburbs further east and south (City of San Diego 2007B:36-41, and Residential Development Patterns Map).

During the immediate post-war years, the International style had a greater influence on the architecture of new public schools locally and across the country, but San Diego school architects quickly began intermingling the International style with newer architectural trends to produce school designs best categorized as “Mid-Century Modern.” Compared to the large multi-story, sometimes monumental buildings that dominated most pre-World War II public schools and kept students indoors most of the day, post-war school complexes developed in the suburbs would have dramatically different plans and spatial configurations, reflecting the kind of indoor-outdoor planning and user experience that a few innovative Modernist architects had created in pre-World War II school designs.

Examples of such pre-war innovation included Richard Neutra’s influential International-Style addition to Los Angeles’s Corona Avenue School, which featured movable walls that opened to outdoor courtyard spaces. Another example is Crow Island School, designed by Eliel and Eero Saarinen, Lawrence B. Perkins, E. Todd Wheeler, and Philip Will, Jr. Located in Winnetka, Illinois, the Crow Island School was completed in 1940. Its plan consisted of a central common building and extensive, low-slung, single-story wings with central corridors and projecting L-shaped classrooms with large windows and immediate access to courtyard spaces between classrooms (Baker 2012: 11-12; City of San Diego 2007B:36-41, and Residential Development Patterns Map). These architectural precedents proved extremely influential over time. Charles Wesley Bursch, chief school planner for the California of Department of Education, expressed the growing post-war enthusiasm for Modernist indoor-outdoor school design in 1947. “School architecture,” wrote Bursch, “must recognize [that] its forms, dimensions, color, materials, and texture are capable of creating an environment which either attracts or repels the child. . .The school plant designed for the child is unpretentious, open, colorful; spread out planning permits him to blow off steam and breath fresh air . . . the general environment is not forbidding and monumental but is informal and devoid of affectation as the child himself” (Ogata 2008: 564-567, 569 [quote]). Completed in in 1949, architect John Lyon Reid’s influential Montecito School in Martinez, California, embodied the ideals outlined by Bursch. The school consisted of parallel rows of low-rise classroom buildings, open circulation corridors, and L-shaped classrooms with sheltered gardens and yards, all of which, as architectural historian Amy F. Ogata explains, “maximized space and traffic flow, light, and provided integrated areas for indoor and outdoor teaching” (Ogata 2008: 568-569, 569 quoted).

During the 1950s, new school sites in San Diego’s expanding automobile suburbs provided opportunities for spatial organization along the lines of Reid’s Montecito School. The monumental, multistory school building of pre-war decades would give way to spread-out campuses comprised of numerous low-slung office and classroom buildings with ample windows, and perhaps an auditorium and gymnasium built to greater heights. As Ogata explains, post-war school “architects across the country used poured-concrete slabs for low-rise structures, lightweight steel frames . . . and expanses of glass,” which provided for less expensive building costs compared to pre-war

Audubon K–8 School Cultural Resources Evaluation, June 23, 2015

schools. Circulation through new school facilities would take place mainly in open-air corridors covered by projecting eaves or canopies supported by columns, usually steel pipe columns. Within a Cold War context of students performing “duck-and-cover” drills in preparation for potential nuclear attack, observers praised the new Mid-Century Modern schools as easier to evacuate than the older large multistory school buildings. Notable architects and architectural firms that designed post-war San Diego public schools in Modernist idioms included Lloyd Ruocco, Frank Hope and Associates, and Clyde Hufbauer. Over time, the flat roofs typical of the International Style gradually gave way to shed roofs and more boldly V-shaped and butterfly roofs. The indoor-outdoor designs of post-war schools increased the importance of landscaping, and in 1947, SDUSD hired its first full- time landscape architect, Jane Minshall, who designed campus plantings, circulation features, and playgrounds until her retirement in the 1970s (City of San Diego 2007B:92; Brown 1988; Minshall 1974; Ogata 2008:568-569; Pitman No Date; San Diego Tribune 1954).

The original portion of Audubon K–8 School was designed by San Diego master architect Samuel W. Hamill. Hamill submitted plans for the school to SDUSD in December 1954. Chamco Construction Company began construction of the original buildings in April 1954 and completed the job in January 1955. Having occupied temporary buildings on site for over a year, first through third-grade students and teachers moved into the new permanent classrooms on the last day of January 1955. Fourth through sixth-grade students and teachers continued to occupy temporary classroom buildings. SDUSD moved to provide permanent classrooms for fourth through sixth-grade students and teachers following a $5 million bond sale. In December 1956, Architect J. Thomas Erchul of San Diego completed standardized plans for construction of classroom additions at five schools. Audubon K–8 School’s Classroom Addition building was completed in 1957. The school’s Post- Modern Library building was constructed in 2004 (Erchul 1956A-1956B; Hamill 1954A-1954F; San Diego Union 1955, 1956; SDUSD 2007).

Audubon K–8 School does not appear to have any direct associations with significant events or patterns of events in San Diego, California, or United States history. Although the school’s development occurred in association with San Diego’s post-World War II period of expansive growth and suburban housing construction, such an association is too commonplace to confer historical significance on the campus. Like public infrastructure generally, school complexes are developed in anticipation of growth, or to encourage or accommodate growth. Were associations with a concept like “growth” treated as qualification for historical significance, then all buildings, complexes, and infrastructure surviving from an era characterized by population growth and related physical growth would be eligible for the CRHR. Buildings developed at that time should have direct associations with less general and more precisely identifiable events or patterns of events than “growth” to be considered eligible for the CRHR under Criterion 1. Research for this evaluation has yielded no evidence that the Audubon K–8 School campus, or any of its existing individual buildings, have associations with important educational innovations or other discernibly significant historical events or patterns of events in the 1950s and 1960s. For these reasons, neither the Audubon K–8 School campus as a whole nor any of its individual buildings appears to meet Criterion 1 for listing on the CRHR.

Associations with potentially significant architects are discussed in reference to CRHR Criterion 3 below. Audubon K–8 School does not appear to have any associations with historically important individuals whose significant work took place at the campus. A school complex or building cannot be considered significant if a student educated there subsequently became a historically important

Audubon K–8 School Cultural Resources Evaluation, June 23, 2015

individual in adult life, because the work that made such an individual historically important did not occur at the school. Educational activities are the primary functions of school buildings and complexes. Research has revealed no evidence that faculty members or administrators implemented historically significant teaching methods or educational programs, or performed any other work at the school that would confer historical significance on the campus or any of its individual buildings. Consequently, neither Audubon K–8 School as a whole nor any of its individual buildings appears to meet Criterion 2 for listing on the CRHR.

Although J. Thomas Erchul, who designed Audubon K–8 School’s 1957 Classroom Addition, is not considered a San Diego-area master architect, Samuel W. Hamill, who designed the school’s original 1955 buildings, is considered a San Diego-area master architect. Born in Arizona on April 27, 1903, Hamill moved as a child with his family to San Diego in 1909. Fascinated by the Spanish Colonial Revival architecture of San Diego’s 1915 Panama-California Exposition, Hamill took drafting classes during his high school years with master architect Lilian Rice, who became his mentor, and interned for a summer with William Templeton Johnson, the lead architect for the 1915 Exposition. Hamill attended San Diego State University for a year and transferred to the University of California, Berkeley, where he studied architecture and graduated with honors in 1927. Returning to San Diego, he won employment with the firm of Requa and Jackson. Highpoints of his early career included assisting Rice in designing the town center of Rancho Santa Fe, designing the Casa de Tempo model home in Balboa Park, and designing several as buildings at the Del Mar Fairgrounds. In 1935 Hamill joined three other prominent local architects on the Works Progress Administration project to develop the Civic Center building (today’s County Administration Building) and eventually became the chief designer for the project. Hamill’s master architect status derives mainly from his Spanish Colonial Revival style architectural designs during the pre-World War II period, but he continued working as an architect after the war and designed Mid-Century Modern buildings and complexes. Hamill went on to serve as the architect for the Union Title and Trust Company, and in 1950 he designed the Veterans’ War Memorial Building in Balboa Park. He subsequently served as lead architect for the Civic Center and Community Concourse. By the time Hamill retired in 1968, he had firmly distinguished himself as both an influential architect and as a civic leader through his associations with San Diegans, Inc., the Committee of 100, and the American Institute of Architects (Freeley et al. 2001:12; Young 1985).

Audubon K–8 School’s original 1955 complex (Buildings A, B, C, D, and the Kindergarten Building) appears to be eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion 3, at the local level of significance, as a noteworthy example of San Diego-area master architect Samuel W. Hamill’s late-career work in the Modernist idiom, and as an excellent example of Mid-Century Modern school architecture and planning. The period of significance is 1955, the year of the original complex’s construction. While circulation canopies with steel pipe-column supports are typical elements of 1950s schools in San Diego and elsewhere, the arcade arrangement of sheltering canopies with rectangular slab supports at Audubon’s main entry area is a distinctive element of the school’s design that may represent a Modernist variation on the arcades of Spanish Colonial Revival architecture, which Hamill’s specialized in during the pre-World War II period. Although possibly not exclusive to Audubon K–8 School, the classroom buildings’ exceptionally large, continuous windows along west elevations represent a highly distinctive Mid-Century Modern feature. Additional distinctive characteristics include the other large banks of original steel-frame windows, the corner window at Building A’s administration wing, the slightly pitched and overhanging shed roof lines, the perpendicular wall elements at the administration wing and Kindergarten Building, and the long cantilevered canopy,

Audubon K–8 School Cultural Resources Evaluation, June 23, 2015

the canted canopy element, and the grid-scored wall on the north elevation of Building A at the auditorium-cafeteria. These elements, along with the lawns, trees, and shrubs of landscaped areas between buildings and at the north and west sides of the original 1955 portion of Audubon K–8 School make it a distinctive example of Mid-Century Modern school architecture and planning.

Although alterations have diminished the historical integrity of the significant portion of the school to some degree, it maintains sufficient historical integrity to convey its significance. Unlike many other San Diego schools of the era, which have received new buildings or major additions to historic- period buildings within core areas of their original complexes, Audubon’s non-original 1957 Classroom Addition, 2004 Library Building, and portable buildings are located at the northeast and southwest peripheries of the original L-shaped 1955 complex. They do not impinge visually on historic feeling and setting from most vantage points within the permanent buildings of the 1955 complex. The 1955 complex itself has undergone several physical alterations. Although not visible from every vantage point, non-original air conditioning units atop building roofs have undermined the integrity of their sleek, low-slung design, and thereby reduced integrity of feeling and setting. The small utility addition and fence projecting west from Building A’s auditorium-cafeteria volume at the north (front) elevation represent a slight alteration of the building’s plan. They blend in well and have not heavily impinged upon original architectural features. The non-original disability ramp and railing leading to the south side of Building A along the west elevation of Building B represents a slight exterior modification. The non-original lunch shelter south of Building A’s auditorium- cafeteria and kitchen diminishes integrity of feeling and setting in that area. Finally, consultation of original as-built plans indicates that the louvered shade at the west elevation of Building D may not be original, but it was likely installed soon after 1955. Despite these limited alterations, and given the abundance of original windows and design elements, the original Audubon K–8 School complex retains a much higher degree of historical integrity than most San Diego-area schools dating to the 1950s.

The contributing elements of the significant portion of the school are Buildings A, B, C, D, and the Kindergarten Building, the circulation canopies attached to and connecting these buildings, the landscaped areas at the north and west sides of the original 1955 complex and in between original classroom buildings, and the quickly accessible blacktop play area on the south and east sides of the L-shaped complex. The portable buildings, the 1957 Classroom Addition, the Post-Modern 2004 Library Building, and the lunch shelter are not contributing buildings and structures. In terms of design, the Classroom Addition, the Library Building, and the lunch shelter represent departures from the 1955 architecture of the original complex. Portable buildings with the same design as many of the portable buildings currently present at Audubon K–8 School can be observed at post-war campuses across San Diego. Available evidence does not rule out the possibility that some of the portables currently present were also present when the 1955 portion of the Audubon campus was completed. However, available evidence does not confirm their presence in 1955 either. The school’s original plot plan suggests that nine portable classrooms were present when the permanent buildings were completed (Hamill 1954A). These were located south of Building C and arranged in three east-west aligned rows, whereas today the portables in that area are arranged in north-south aligned rows. Since SDUSD appears to have invented portable classroom buildings, it is possible that the surviving first generation of portables designed and built by SDUSD during World War II could have historical significance. However, Audubon K–8 School’s current portable buildings appear to have been designed after World War II. For these reasons, the portable buildings present today do not appear to contribute to the significance of the permanent complex of 1955 buildings.

Audubon K–8 School Cultural Resources Evaluation, June 23, 2015

The original 1955 complex’s character-defining features include the following: the existing building plans and building envelopes (save the addition at the north elevation of Building A, though any expansion of this addition could affect integrity); existing roofs and roof overhangs (additional air conditioning units and other structures on roofs will reduce integrity); all cantilevered or otherwise attached canopy elements and walkway canopy shelters, including the rectangular slab supports along the main campus entry arcade, and existing steel pipe-column supports; slightly textured stucco exterior wall surfaces and the grid-scored surface of the wedge projection under the canted canopy near the east end of Building A’s north elevation; all existing window openings and original steel- or wood-frame windows; all door openings and the glazed entry door to the main office of Building A’s administration wing (replacement institutional grade doors elsewhere would not significantly diminish integrity); existing concrete walkways; existing landscaped areas and the existing “open” quality of the relationships between landscaped areas and buildings (meaning the existing absences of intervening fences, walls, and other structures between landscaped areas and contributing buildings); the open blacktop play area south and east of the L-shaped original complex, and the existing easy access to the blacktop play areas from contributing buildings.

In Summary, the original 1955 portion of Audubon K–8 School appears to meet Criterion 3 for listing in the CRHR a historic Mid-Century Modern school complex. Consequently, the school’s original 1955 complex appears to be a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. Impacts and Recommendations

Archaeological and Paleontological Resources Based on the above findings, the following conclusions reflect the potential for archaeological or paleontological remains to be exposed during project construction at Audubon K–8 School:

• Prehistoric Archaeology: Unlikely, monitoring during construction not recommended.

• Historical Archaeology: Unlikely, monitoring during construction not recommended.

• Paleontology: Possible, depends on the depth of proposed construction excavation on school property; monitoring recommended if excavation will impact previously undisturbed sediments and if grading exceeds 1,000 cubic yards and is ten or more feet deep ( measured from the original ground surface if the site was previously graded) (City of San Diego, 2007A).

Evidence indicates that the Audubon K–8 School site has low potential for historic archaeology. Because the project area has been extensively graded, the school site has low potential for historic archaeology. However, no cultural resources studies have been completed within the boundaries of the school property. The current site is completely paved, built or landscaped so it is not possible to state with certainty that no prehistoric archaeological resources are present. Because the project area has been extensively graded, ICF does not recommend archaeological monitoring. However, as stipulated in CEQA 15064.5(f), if unexpected archaeological materials are discovered during construction grading or trenching, work should stop in the immediate area until it is evaluated by a qualified archaeologist to assess the significance of the resource, and to provide proper management recommendations.

Soil surveys and geologic mapping indicate the school site has been extensively graded, and is underlain by the Otay Formation (Kennedy and Tan 2005), which is considered highly sensitive

Audubon K–8 School Cultural Resources Evaluation, June 23, 2015

fossil-bearing strata (City of San Diego 2007A). For areas with a high sensitivity rating, a significant impact may occur if grading exceeds 1,000 cubic yards (the volume count starts at the surface) and is ten or more feet deep (City of San Diego, 2007). If a site has been previously graded, then the depth should be measured from the original, pre-graded ground surface.

ICF recommends paleontological monitoring if ground disturbance meets the significant impacts threshold proposed by the City of San Diego (City of San Diego 2007). Paleontological monitoring by a qualified paleontological monitor would be required if grading exceeds 1,000 cubic yards and is ten or more feet deep, measured from the original ground surface if the site was previously graded, to reduce this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level. Paleontological monitoring would consist of the following:

 Assessment of site-specific excavation plans to determine areas that will be designated for paleontological monitoring during initial ground disturbance, and development of monitoring protocols for designated areas. Areas consisting of artificial fill materials or areas of ground disturbance less than ten feet in depth from original, pre-graded ground surface, will not require monitoring.

 A paleontological monitor qualified to Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards will be equipped to salvage fossils if they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and remove samples of sediments that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. The monitor will be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. Monitoring may be reduced if some of the potentially fossiliferous units are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified paleontologic personnel to have a low potential to contain fossil resources.

 Fossil remains collected during the monitoring and salvage portion of the mitigation program shall be cleaned, repaired, sorted, and catalogued. Prepared fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos, and maps, shall be deposited (as a donation) in a scientific institution with permanent paleontological collections, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum. Donation of the fossils shall be accompanied by financial support for initial specimen storage.

 A monitoring report shall be completed by the Lead Paleontologist and submitted to the District for review and approval. The report will discuss the monitoring methods and results, and provide interpretations about any recovered materials or sites identified, if any.

Historical Resources Although the proposed project would not demolish any buildings, it would alter exterior character- defining features of the 1955 Audubon K–8 School complex that help convey its historic significance as an excellent example of Mid-Century Modern school architecture. Those elements of the project that would alter exterior characteristics of the 1955 complex include installation of an HVAC unit atop the administration wing of Building A (where no HVAC unit is currently present); installation of steel security fencing and new paving on the north side of Building A at the western portion of the Auditorium-Cafeteria volume’s north elevation; an addition to the west elevation of Building A’s administration wing; and creation of a new secured courtyard area west of the addition. The courtyard would incorporate new steel west and north perimeter security fencing under steel

Audubon K–8 School Cultural Resources Evaluation, June 23, 2015

overhead “trellises,” new concrete perimeter walkways, new concrete walkways and paving within the courtyard, and concrete mow curbs. ADA upgrades to the existing non-compliant ADA ramp access at the at the west end of the Kindergarten Building’s south elevation, and to the bathroom at the north end of Building A’s east elevation, would not result in impacts to character-defining features.

The security fencing and new paving at the north side of Building A, along the west portion of the Auditorium-Cafeteria volume, would introduce non-original structural elements that would alter the current visual relationship between the building, the existing concrete walkway, and the existing landscaping. Although installation of the steel security fencing at this location would not entail demolition of building elements, and would not amount to a substantial alteration in itself, it would occur near the addition that has already altered the west elevation of the Cafeteria-Auditorium. The new fencing would slightly diminish integrity of design, materials, and feeling in that area of Building A, which is entirely visible from San Vicente Street.

The school continues to convey its significance presently despite installation of non-original HVAC roof units that are visible from some vantage points and have diminished integrity of design and feeling by altering the appearance of roof lines from those vantage points. The HVAC unit to be installed atop the roof of Building A’s administration wing will be placed so as to minimize its visibility in as much as possible. Overall, the original, significant, 1955 portion of the school would continue to convey its significance despite these alterations.

However, the project would also introduce an addition to the west elevation of Building A’s administration wing, as well as new security fencing and paving at the north side of Building A’s cafeteria/auditorium volume. The sum of these alterations at the west and north sides of Building A would substantially diminish the historical integrity of design, materials, and feeling at these portions of the original 1955 campus, which are highly visible from adjacent streets. Other elements of the proposed project would not substantially alter character-defining features or reduce integrity.

Audubon K–8 School Cultural Resources Evaluation, June 23, 2015

Hence other portions of the campus would continue to convey its significance under CRHR Criterion 3.

In order to reduce project impacts to a less than significant level overall, ICF recommends historical resource documentation of the significant 1955 portion of Audubon K–8 School (Buildings A, B, C, and D, the Kindergarten Building, and associated landscape elements). ICF recommends that documentation modeled on the National Park Service’s Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) program, along the lines of HABS Level III treatment. This would include large-format black and white photographs providing exterior views of the significant portion of the campus, a short physical description of the significant portion of the campus, and a photo index describing each of the photographic views and compositions. These would be provided along with a short report containing a brief physical description of the significant portion of the school, a brief narrative explaining its historical significance, and a site map of the campus. The photographic views would be prepared as 8x10 machine-printed black & white archival prints and the accompanying photo index and other written data would be printed on archival paper. The completed HABS-like documentation packages would be archived for public access at the California Room of the Central San Diego Public Library, and the Document Library at the San Diego History Center. ICF recommends that one additional documentation package be prepared for SDUSD to keep on file.

Audubon K–8 School Cultural Resources Evaluation, June 23, 2015 References

Baker, Lindsay 2012. A History of School Design and its Indoor Environmental Standards, 1900 to Today. January 2012. National Clearing House for Educational Facilities, National Institute of Building Sciences. Available: http://www.ncef.org/pubs/greenschoolshistory.pdf. Accessed October 30, 2012.

Bowman, R.H. 1973 Soil survey of San Diego Area, California. USDA. Soil Conserv. Serv., Washington, DC. Brown, Joanne 1988 “’A is for Atom, B is for Bomb: Civil Defense in American Public Education, 1947-1963,” Journal of American History, 75 (June, 1988): 68-90.

City of San Diego 2007A Paleontological Resources. Draft General Plan. Final PEIR

2007B San Diego Modernism Historic Context Statement. Prepared by the City of San Diego Historical Resources Board, City of San Diego Planning and Community Investment Department, and Heritage Architecture and Planning, for submission to the State of California, Office of Historic Preservation, San Diego, California, available: http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1054/ files/san%20diego%20modenism%20context.pdf. Accessed June, 2012.

Erchul, Thomas J. 1956 Typical Exterior Typical Exterior Elevations, Classroom Additions, San Diego, California. Sheet A-53. December 7. On file at the Architectural Archives of the SDUSD Maintenance and Operations Center. San Diego, California.

1956 Door and Window Schedules, Classroom Additions, San Diego, California. Sheet A-57. December 7. On file at the Architectural Archives of the SDUSD Maintenance and Operations Center. San Diego, California.

Freeley, Jennifer, Tricia Olsen, Ricki Siegel, Ginger Weatherford, and Historic Resources Board Staff 2011 Biographies of Established Masters. San Diego Historic Resources Board. Available: http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/programs/historical/pdf/201109biographies.pdf. Accessed July 15, 2012.

Hamill, Samuel W. (Sam W. Hamill Architect) 1954A Plot Plan, John James Audubon. Sheet 1 of 39. February 1. On file at the Architectural Archives of the SDUSD Maintenance and Operations Center. San Diego, California.

1954B Floor Plan Unit “E” [Kindergarten] John James Audubon. Sheet 4 of 39. February 1. On file at the Architectural Archives of the SDUSD Maintenance and Operations Center. San Diego, California.

1954C Exterior Elevations Unit “A,” John James Audubon. Sheet 5 of 39. February 1. On file at the Architectural Archives of the SDUSD Maintenance and Operations Center. San Diego, California.

Audubon K–8 School Cultural Resources Evaluation, June 23, 2015

1954D Exterior Elevations Units “B” “C” “D,” John James Audubon. Sheet 6 of 39. February 1. On file at the Architectural Archives of the SDUSD Maintenance and Operations Center. San Diego, California.

1954E Door and Window Details, John James Audubon. Sheet 10 of 39. February 1. On file at the Architectural Archives of the SDUSD Maintenance and Operations Center. San Diego, California.

1954F Door and Window Details, John James Audubon. Sheet 11 of 39. February 1. On file at the Architectural Archives of the SDUSD Maintenance and Operations Center. San Diego, California.

Kennedy, M. P., and Tan, S. S., 2005 Geologic Map of the San Diego 30' x 60' Quadrangle, California. Regional Geologic Map Series 1:100,000 scale, Map No. 3: California Geological Survey, California Department of Conservation. Minshall, Jane 1974 Report on Land & Facilities Planning, SDUSD Business Services Division. September 24, 1974. Bio Folder 156: Mil-Moe, San Diego History Center.

National Environmental Title Research, LLC 1953 Historic Aerial Photograph of Audubon K–8 School Site. Available: . Accessed March 24, 2015. Ogata, Amy F. 2008 “Building for Learning in Postwar American Elementary Schools.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians. 67 (December, 2008): 562-91.

Pitman, Todd No Date “Lloyd Pietrantonio Ruocco, 1907-1981.” Modern San Diego Real Estate Website—Architects—Lloyd Pietrantonio Ruocco. Available: http://www.modernsandiego. com/LloydRuocco.html. Accessed August, 2012.

San Diego Tribune 1954 “San Diego Schools Landscaping Begins on Woman’s Drafting Board.” San Diego Tribune, November 30, 1954. News Clip from Bio Folder 156: Mil-Moe, San Diego History Center.

1993 “Clyde Hufbauer, 82: designed many San Diego area schools.” December 25, 1993. News Clip from Bio Folder 115: Hos-Hum, San Diego History Center.

San Diego Union 1955 “Twelve Classrooms Completed at Audubon School.” January 30: A-20.

1956 “Construction Plans Okd by Educators—5 Million Dollars in School Bonds Ordered Sold.” December 19: A-15.

San Diego Unified School District (SDUSD) 2007 Audubon Elementary School Small Scale Plot Plan. February 8, 2007. On file at the Architectural Archives of the SDUSD Maintenance and Operations Center. San Diego, California.

Audubon K–8 School Cultural Resources Evaluation, June 23, 2015

Scarr, Lew 1956 “Schoolmen Praise Portables.” San Diego Tribune, March 12, 1956. News Clip from Box 87—Schools—A-F, San Diego History Center.

Young, Laura 1985 “Silent Sentinel: Samuel Wood Hamill, F.A.I.A.” Journal of San Diego History, 31 (Winter). . Accessed September 20, 2014.

United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1904 San Diego, California. 15-minute Series Topographic Quadrangle Map (culture surveyed 1902)

1944 National City, California. 7.5-minute Series Topographic Quadrangle Map (culture surveyed 1938-39)

1953 National City, California. 7.5-minute Series Topographic Quadrangle Map (culture revised from 1950 aerial photographs) .

ATTACHMENT 1

HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT

[This page intentionally left blank.]

Modern San Diego Public School Development The purpose of this historic context is to provide a contextual framework for historical resource evaluations of San Diego Unified School District (SDUSD) school buildings and complexes. This historic context is not based on a historical resource reconnaissance survey of SDUSD school facilities, nor does it establish thresholds of significance or specific character-defining features of schools likely to have architectural significance. It includes photographs of historic-period SDUSD school buildings to provide general illustration of architectural styles and features. While some of the school buildings in the example photographs may meet California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) significance criteria, their inclusion among the photographs is not intended to imply eligibility for CRHR listing.

Loss of Pre-1933 San Diego Public School Buildings

The current San Diego Unified School District boundaries stretch from La Jolla to Scripps Ranch and from Paradise Valley and Point Loma (San Diego Unified School District 2013a). The school district is the second largest in California and serves 132,787 students from pre-kindergarten through grade 12 within 227 educational facilities. Of those, there are 117 elementary schools, 24 middle schools, and 26 high schools (San Diego Unified School District 2013b).

The first San Diego school opened in 1851, and the school district was established three years later (San Diego Unified School District 1954, 2013b). The first high school started in 1888, when high school teachers began teaching students at Russ School, which had been constructed six years earlier. High school operations took over the Russ School building in 1892, and in 1903 the school became San Diego High School. In 1906, a new San Diego High School was constructed (San Diego Unified School District 1954). An increasing population prompted the school district to expand from its first rented school building. Between 1900 and 1920, the school population grew from 3,000 to 14,275 students plus evening high school and part-time students. In addition to construction of San Diego High School, 16 new elementary schools were also constructed (San Diego Unified School District 1954; Wilson 1942:159-163). In 1924-1925, East San Diego (including City Heights) and Normal Heights were annexed and brought Euclid, Central, Hamilton, and Normal Heights into the school system (Wilson 1942:163). By the end of the 1920s, schools were overcrowded. Support of the 1928 bond funded the replacement of old buildings and construction of new schools in 1930 (Wilson 1942:164-165).

None of the major public school buildings in which San Diego children were educated prior to the 1930s continue to stand today. Still, in order to understand how the educational system and school architecture evolved over the course of the twentieth century, it is important to understand the relationship between Progressive-era educational reform and reform-oriented school planning during the first decades of the twentieth century.

Progressive educational reform and school planning mirrored Progressive reformers’ efforts to educate immigrant and working class Americans for effective citizenship, ameliorate the worst physical features of urban working-class tenement buildings, and improve the health of tenement residents. Progressive-minded school architects and planners sought to improve classroom ventilation and exposure to natural light, and enhance safety by fireproofing new buildings with

concrete and steel construction. In contrast to the limited fenestration of older school buildings, new buildings were increasingly ventilated by rows of steel-framed awning or hopper windows stacked two or three high, which were intended to enhance comfort and reduce germs. Concern with student health also translated into new emphasis on physical activity as essential for proper childhood and adolescent mental and physical development. The notion that such development took place in stages led to creation of the 6-3-3-year division of elementary schools, junior high schools, and high schools during this period. Influenced by psychologist and philosopher, John Dewy, educators increasingly rejected the rote memorization exercises that dominated Victorian- era classroom activity. Within the improved physical environments of newer schools, children would be encouraged to engage actively with the world. Educational reformers adopted a child- or pupil-centered approach. They tailored educational exercises to individual experience and worked to foster the student’s development through participatory engagement, critical thinking, and problem solving, all of which promised to better prepare youth for democratic participation. Progressive-era educators also introduced gendered home economics or domestic arts training as well as vocational training in woodwork, metal work, and auto mechanics (Baker 2012:8-9; Bederman 1995:77-120; Bowers 1967; Hyatt et al. 1914:8-13; SDUSD 1954; Teaford 1993:26-27, 33-34; Zellie 2005:12, 14-15, 21-22).

Figure 1: Point Loma High School, 1925. Source: O.B. Rag, “Point Loma High School Video Celebrates its Opening in 1925—Video,” Available: http://obrag.org/?p=66120, Accessed November 6, 2012.

Figure 2: Demolition of Original Point Loma High School Buildings, 1974. Source: “High School Auditorium Walls Topple,” San Diego Union, July 24, 1974, News Clip from Box 87—Schools—M-R, San Diego History Center.

In 1933, the Long Beach Earthquake destroyed 70 schools and caused 40 masonry school buildings to be condemned in the greater Los Angeles area. Inspectors found that across the Los Angeles region, more recently constructed fireproof buildings with steel or reinforced concrete beams in floors and roofs withstood the earthquake much better than older masonry buildings. Passed in response to the post-earthquake inspections, the 1933 Field Act (or Field Bill) empowered the State Division of Architecture to institute new regulations and codes mandating earthquake resistant buildings. Six years later, the Garrison Act created new criteria for continued use of school buildings constructed prior to 1933. As a consequence of the Field Act, none of the larger San Diego public- school buildings or complexes constructed prior to 1933 stand today. Those pre-1933 schools included numerous large, two-to-three story, rectangular, L- or U-shaped buildings designed in late- nineteenth-century Victorian styles, or, after the turn of the century, in the Neo-Classical, Mission Revival, and Spanish Colonial Revival styles (Department of General Services 2012; Heumann and Doehne 2002a:8-9; Kistner 1915; Sanborn Map Company 1906, 1921, 1926, 1940a, 1940b; Smythe 1908). It appears that during the 1950s and 1960s, officials began to declare these early San Diego school buildings and complexes seismically unsafe and in need of replacement under the Field Act and subsequent supplementary legislation. In the wake of the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake, the State of California provided new funding for retrofitting or replacing pre-1933 school buildings. As a result, large Mission Revival and Spanish Colonial Revival buildings at La Jolla, Point Loma, and

Hoover High Schools—all important examples of these architectural styles in major civic buildings—were put to the wrecking ball (see Figures 1 and 2). The demand for seismic safety had a major impact on the San Diego built environment, and many school sites across the city would eventually come to be dominated by buildings designed and constructed during the post-World War II period (Dalberg ca. 1975; San Diego Union 1973).

The Great Depression and World War II

Following the stock market crash of 1929, the onset of the Great Depression initiated a new period of financial hard times for San Diego schools. As unemployment rates skyrocketed and the local tax base dwindled, school officials increased class sizes and reduced teacher salaries. San Diego public schools and the city at large benefited from federal public-works programs created by the Roosevelt administration’s New Deal. The Works Progress Administration (WPA) sponsored murals by local artists at public schools and funded a major curriculum development initiative in San Diego. Although the WPA built a substantial complex at today’s San Diego State University, the extent of New Deal investment in San Diego public school construction remains unclear. By 1940, the number of students in the district had grown to 31,484 and the school district had expanded to 38 elementary schools, five junior high schools, two junior-senior high schools, three high schools (San Diego, La Jolla, and Hoover), a day and evening junior college, a continuation school, and a vocational school (City of San Diego 2007:29-30; Gelernter 1999:246-248; Leighninger 1996; McElvaine 1984:152-153, 255, 265-75; Mehren 1972a; Mehren 1972b, SDUSD 1954). European in origin, the Modernist International style made its first appearance in southern California school architecture in Los Angeles during the 1930s. Associated with the Bauhaus School of Modernist design, Architects Richard Neutra and Rudolf Schindler first introduced the International style to the west coast after emigrating from Europe. These and other practitioners of the style turned away from traditional ornamentation and historical references and instead sought to create building forms that expressed their function and structure through “rational, clean, uncluttered” design. Institutional International style buildings typically had a horizontal orientation and were sometimes box-shaped and sometimes incorporated asymmetrical cubic massing. Such buildings also typically featured flat roofs with low parapets or overhanging cantilevered slabs, smooth wall surfaces of concrete, brick, stucco, or steel, square corners, and expansive horizontal bands of steel-frame fixed or sash windows (City of San Diego 2007:24 quoted, 58-60). International style educational buildings do not appear to have been designed in San Diego until 1945 or later, though earlier examples may be revealed as more SDUSD schools are evaluated for potential historical significance.

Several International-style school facilities designed during the 1930s and 40s beyond San Diego merit brief discussion here, because they would become important exemplars of Modernist school design in the United States. In the Los Angeles area, Richard Neutra employed the International style in his design of a major addition to the Corona Avenue School, completed in 1935. Neutra’s addition featured large L-shaped classrooms with sliding full-length glass doors that opened to a courtyard and served both to maximize natural light and facilitate an indoor-outdoor curriculum. Neutra’s addition to Corona Avenue School would prove highly influential over subsequent decades.

Figure 3: Crow Island School, photographed in 1989. From National Register Nomination Form: http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NHLS/Photos/89001730.pdfoint, Accessed November 5, 2012.

Figure 4: Crow Island School classrooms, photographed in 1989. From National Register Nomination Form: http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NHLS/Photos/89001730.pdfoint, Accessed November 5, 2012.

Completed in 1940, and designed by Eliel and Eero Saarinen, Lawrence B. Perkins, E. Todd Wheeler, and Philip Will, Jr., the Crow Island School in in Winnetka, Illinois, would also prove highly influential (Figures 3 and 4). The school’s plan consisted of a central common building and low- slung, single-story wings with central corridors and projecting L-shaped classrooms. The classrooms incorporated large banks of steel-framed window, including corner windows, and provided immediate access to courtyard spaces, which, like Neutra’s Corona Avenue School addition, served to intermingle indoor and outdoor space (Baker 2012:11-12; 59; Heumann and Doehne 2002b; Ogata 2008:564). It appears that during the 1930s and early 40s, the Moderne style or styles (Art Moderne or Streamline Moderne, and PWA Moderne) had the greatest influence on public school design in San Diego. Streamline Moderne departed from Art Deco’s geometrically ornate surfaces, vertical emphasis, and elements of pre-modern historicism (or “primitivism”). Like the International style, Streamline Moderne had a more horizontal emphasis and dispensed with explicit ornamental references to earlier forms of architecture. Unlike the more purist Modernism of the International Style, which also eschewed ornamentation generally in favor of an aesthetics rooted in the expression of buildings’ structural functions, Streamline Moderne reflected a more populist future- orientated design aesthetic that made use of visual references to transportation technology such as airplanes, trains, and ships. Streamline Moderne buildings incorporated asymmetrical massing, flat roofs, smooth wall surfaces, curving corners, glass-block windows, steel-framed windows, horizontal string courses. In contrast, PWA Moderne buildings—a number of which were constructed at Los Angeles schools during the late 1930s—often retained stripped-down classicism or other restrained historical references. PWA Moderne school buildings typically incorporated recessed and often centered entries framed by column pilasters or quoin moldings, sometimes with pediments, as well as large rectangular window openings, fluted patterns borrowed from Art Deco, and sometimes curved corners borrowed from Streamline Moderne (City of San Diego 2007:24, 27, 54-55; Gelernter 1999:249-50, 241-43; Heumann and Doehne 2002a:13; Heumann and Doehne 2002b).

One San Diego school with Moderne architectural features, Franklin Elementary School, is located in the Kensington neighborhood (Figure 5). Built in 1934, the school’s earliest and distinctly Moderne building contains the main entrance, offices, and classrooms. An addition to the 1934 building and a second classroom building were constructed in 1940-41. Research has yielded no evidence that any of these buildings were constructed as a WPA or PWA project. The 1934 building has stucco-covered exterior walls, which curve in several places rather than forming corners. In addition to the wall curvature, a horizontal string course and glass block windows also register Streamline Moderne influence. The school’s upper exterior wall edges feature coping in a chevron

pattern, decorative motif widely employed in Art Deco buildings and structures (SDUSD 2015; San Diego Union 1940).

As a center of U.S. Naval activity, San Diego attracted workers from across the country seeking defense industry jobs created during World War II mobilization, and their children flooded the school system. As a result, SDUSD became the nation’s first school district to design and build portable classrooms. The federal government constructed 13 new schools in the San Diego area, several of which served the new community of Linda Vista. Planned and constructed by the federal government, Linda Vista was a defense-worker community comprised of low-cost housing built with unprecedented mass-production efficiency atop the mesa north of western Mission Valley. The federal government constructed Linda Vista’s schools during the years 1942-43, well after workers had occupied the residential units. In October 1941 the San Diego Union announced that architectural contracts to design the three schools planned for Linda Vista had been awarded to master architect William Templeton Johnson for Linda Vista Elementary, the firm of Kistner & Curtis for Kearny Junior-Senior High School (today’s Montgomery Middle School), and William Lodge for Kit Carson Elementary School (City of San Diego 2007:33-35; San Diego Union 1941; Scarr 1956; SDUSD 1954). Linda Vista Elementary School originally consisted of a long irregular-plan main building along Ulrich street north of Oster street, and two rectangular buildings extending west from near the south end of the main building. Although Linda Vista Elementary School was not a distinctly PWA Moderne school, it incorporated limited decorative historical references. Johnson included several classical features at the school’s main entryway along Ulric street north of the auditorium, including an open pediment above quoin molding and a central entryway arch with flanking columns and entablatures (Figure 6). Fenestration included large banks of rectangular classroom windows, likely framed in steel (sympathetic aluminum replacement windows have since been installed). Linda Vista’s Kearny Junior-Senior High School (now Montgomery Middle School) included two rectangular-plan two-story buildings sited parallel to Ulric street and topped with low-pitched hip roofs. Apart from Moderne-influenced curved and horizontally scored walls at the central recessed main entry to the building along Ulric street, and horizontally scored exterior wall panels, the school’s lack of ornamentation appears to have reflected the growing influence of the International style (Figure 7). Linda Vista’s Kit Carson Elementary School was constructed as a large Moderne, two-story, U- shaped building at Kramer and Coolidge streets (Figure 8). Still present today are WPA-sponsored sculptural panels created by San Diego artist Donal Hord, which adorn large portions of exterior walls at the northeast corner of the plan and above the main entry at Kramer street west of the auditorium entry (San Diego History Center n.d.). At the northeast corner near the auditorium entry, the building also features a curved wall with glass block windows, and the door openings at the auditorium entrance are divided by partitions with curved and fluted ends. Exterior fluting occurs elsewhere, and large rectangular banks of windows light classrooms along the north façade (here again, aluminum windows have replaced what were likely steel-framed units originally).

Figure 5: Main entrance to Franklin Elementary School (1940-41), photographed in November, 2012.

Figure 6: Main entrance to Linda Vista Elementary School (1941-42), photographed in November, 2012.

Figure 6: Montgomery Middle School’s original building fronting Ulrich street (1941-42), photographed November, 2012.

Figure 7: Northeastern corner of Kit Carson Elementary School (1941-42), photographed in November, 2012.

As a large two-story building with a U-shaped plan and prominent sculptural panels, Kit Carson Elementary school retained some of the civic monumental character of earlier large school buildings. In contrast, the other San Diego schools discussed in this section consisted of multiple buildings, some of them predominantly one-story buildings with elongated plans and an auditorium-cafeteria volume built to greater heights. All of these schools appear to have been designed with interior circulation corridors and classroom entries. After World War II, the school site dominated by a large monumental building would become a symbol of the past. Provided with larger school sites in new suburban subdivisions, and committed to exploring Modernist indoor- outdoor design principles, post-war school planners and architects would increasingly eliminate interior circulation corridors, spread out the school plan across a larger area, multiply the number of buildings, and treat the growing interstitial areas between buildings as integral elements of the educational built environment requiring careful attention to landscaping.

Post-World War II San Diego Public Schools

A San Diego population that stood at 203,341 in 1940, just prior to World War II, grew to 334,387 by 1950. Military expansion, growth of the defense industry, and the baby boom all contributed to this population growth. Bond issues of $6,866,000 in 1946, $11,806,000 in 1950, and $15,800,000 in 1953 helped fund both construction of new schools and improvements to existing ones. By June 1954, the student population had grown to 62,818 full-time students and 15,295 part-time students, with 63 elementary schools, seven junior high schools, two junior-senior high schools, five senior high schools (with the additions of Mission Bay [1953] and Kearney [1954]), a junior college, five evening high schools, a continuation high school, and a vocational school (SDUSD 1954). Even with the construction of new permanent school complexes and new buildings at older campuses, SDUSD continued to rely on portable classrooms to accommodate the growing student population (City of San Diego 2007:23, 30-32, 36; Scarr 1956). Most of the previously discussed schools were developed to serve first- and third-ring streetcar suburbs such as La Jolla, Point Loma, Kensington, and City Heights, or to serve the planned defense-worker community of Linda Vista. During the 1950s, construction of new public school complexes took place mainly in emerging automobile suburbs located further out from the urban core, in Pacific/Mission Beach, Bay Park, Clairemont, Serra Mesa, the College and Fairmont areas, and suburbs further east and south (City of San Diego 2007:36-41, and Residential Development Patterns Map).

During the immediate post-war years, the International style had a greater influence on the architecture of new public schools locally and across the country, but San Diego school architects quickly intermingled the International style with newer architectural trends to produce school designs best categorized as “Mid-Century Modern.” San Diego’s post-war schools would stand in marked contrast to the earlier, large (sometimes even monumental) multi-story buildings that often dominated earlier public school sites. The new San Diego-area school designs would reflect architectural trends generally, but would also depend on larger school sites afforded by new suburban developments compared to the more constricted sites in older urbanized areas. The greater space allowed architects to open up and spread out school plans, and make commonplace the kinds of indoor-outdoor design that a few innovative Modernist architects had begun to explore in pre-World War II schools such as Neutra’s Corona Avenue School and the Crow Island School.

Progressive education also underwent important changes following World War II that mirrored the mainstreaming of Modernist architecture, which was pioneered by politically leftist architects in Europe and brought to the United States by immigrants such as Neutra. Amid the left turn in American politics during the Great Depression and New Deal years of the 1930s, many heirs to Progressive-era educational reform insisted that public schools needed to promote critical assessment of social problems and serve the goal of “social reconstruction.” Under pressure from critics, many Cold War-era educators put new emphasis on fundamentals and moved away from the Depression-era emphasis on teaching for social reconstruction. Within the emerging Cold War context, it would become increasingly important for schools to ready an entire generation to beat the Soviet Union in the arms and space races. Public education remained pupil-centered, but the emphasis shifted from social reconstruction to students’ social adjustment and integration, and elementary schools in particular were thought of as socializing domestic extensions of the home. Amid the changing political climate, many post-war educators and school planners continued to retain the older Progressive-era faith in psychological and social environmentalism—the idea that properly designed physical environments could shape educational experience for the better. As Charles Wesley Bursch, chief school planner for the California of Department of Education explained in 1947: “school architecture. . . must recognize [that] its forms, dimensions, color, materials, and texture are capable of creating an environment which either attracts or repels the child. . .The school plant designed for the child is unpretentious, open, colorful; spread out planning permits him to blow off steam and breath fresh air . . . the general environment is not forbidding and monumental but is informal and devoid of affectation as the child himself” (Brown 1988:70-78; Gelernter 1999:238, 263-264; Hendrick 1974; Ogata 2008:564-567, 569 [quote]).

The quote captures the philosophical basis of suburban school planning in the post-World War II years. One architecturally influential school that achieved the goals outlined by Bursch during the late 1940s was the Montecito School in Martinez, California. Completed in 1949, the school was designed by architect John Lyon Reid, one of the leading post-war school designers in the United States. The school consisted of parallel rows of low-rise classroom buildings, open circulation corridors, and L-shaped classrooms with sheltered gardens and yards, all of which, as architectural historian Amy F. Ogata explains, “maximized space and traffic flow, light, and provided integrated areas for indoor and outdoor teaching” (Ogata 2008:568-569, 569 quoted). Like the Montecito School, new suburban schools in San Diego and other parts of California would employ Modernist architecture to foster greater interplay between indoor and outdoor space and experience. Architects created expansive school plans consisting of numerous low-slung one-story buildings containing classrooms and offices with ample windows, and perhaps an auditorium and gymnasium built to greater heights. As Ogata explains, post-war school “architects across the country used poured-concrete slabs for low-rise structures, lightweight steel frames . . . and expanses of glass,” which proved less expensive to build than pre-war schools. Circulation through new school facilities would take place mainly in open-air corridors covered by broadly projecting eave overhangs and sheltering canopies supported by steel columns (Figure 8). Landscaping between buildings and circulation paths would become an increasingly important element of school plans. Within a Cold War context of students performing “duck-and-cover” drills in preparation for potential nuclear attack, observers praised the new schools as easier to evacuate than the older large multistory school buildings. Notable architects and architectural firms that designed post-war

Figure 8: Bird’s eye drawing of the Clyde Hufbauer-designed Crawford High School, 1957. Source: George Dissinger, “City to Add Two Senior Highs in Year: Schools Keep Pace with Area Growth,” San Diego Tribune, June 18, 1957, News Clip from Box 87—Schools—M-R, San Diego History Center.

Figure 9: Original portion of Audubon Elementary School, designed by Samuel Hamill and constructed in 1955, photographed in October 2014.

Figure 10: SDUSD Board of Education-Eugene Brucker Educational Complex (1953), one of San Diego’s premiere examples of International style architecture, photographed in November, 2012.

Figure11: Main entrance to Mission Bay High School (1953), photographed in November 2012.

Figure12: Butterfly roofs of classroom buildings at Hufbauer-designed Crawford High School (1957), photographed in August, 2012.

Figure 13: Folded-plate wall of library at Taft Middle School (1962), photographed in November 2014.

San Diego public schools in the Modernist idiom included William Templeton Johnson, Samuel Hamill and others who had established themselves prior to the war, as well as architects and architectural firms that would become more exclusively associated with post-war Modernism, including San Diego-era masters such as Lloyd Ruocco, Frank Hope and Associates, and Clyde Hufbauer (City of San Diego 2007:92; Brown 1988; Ogata 2008:568-569; Pitman n.d.; Ruocco 1951).

Hufbauer appears to have designed more post-war San Diego schools than any other local architect. After earning Master of Arts and Doctorate degrees in Architecture at the University of California, Berkeley, Hufbauer moved to San Diego and began his architecture career in the late 1930s. In 1947 Hufbauer established his own firm and began working for SDUSD. Structural engineer Theodore Paulson worked with Hufbauer on many school projects. Hufbauer designed the SDUSD Board of Education-Eugene Brucker Education Center in University Heights, built in 1953 and one of the most significant local examples of International style architecture (Figure 10). Hufbauer’s firm designed eight high schools, 16 junior high schools, and 63 elementary schools. At schools such as Alice Birney Elementary and Mission Bay High School (both built in 1953) and others, Hufbauer created Mid-Century Modern classroom and office buildings with ample windows, smooth surfaces, and low-pitched gabled, shed, or more boldly V-shaped or butterfly roofs with eave broadly projecting overhangs to shelter building entries (Figures 11-12) (City of San Diego 2007:58, 103; May n.d.; San Diego Tribune 1993).

Hufbauer’s school designs reflected broader changes in planning and architecture observable in San Diego schools designed by other architects during the 1950s and 1960s. Larger campus buildings constructed to accommodate auditorium, cafeteria, and gym spaces often continued to echo the International style in their cubic volumes, flat roofs, parapets, cantilevered overhanging elements, and large window walls at lobbies and entries. Over time, classroom and office buildings at schools across San Diego also incorporated bolder roofs along the lines of Hufbauer’s designs, as well as other architectural elements—exposed rafters, colored wall panels, even folded plate walls—that registered the influence of new Modern styles, including the Contemporary, Post-and-Beam, and Futurist-Googie styles (Figure 13). In order to achieve the ideal of a psychologically appealing physical environment, the expanding outdoor spaces of post-war Mid-Century Modern schools required careful attention to landscaping—the design and placement of lawns, trees, shrub clusters, concrete walkways, benches, and planter boxes. Landscape architect Jane Minshall made essential contributions to the built environments of post-war San Diego public schools. Minshall earned her degree in landscape architecture at the University of California, Berkeley, in 1941. In 1947 SDUSD hired her as its landscape architect, a position she held until her retirement in the mid-1970s. Working with Hufbauer and other architects, Minshall chose plants and trees based on their fit for the San Diego climate, water needs, and long-term growth patterns. According to Minshall, the task required her “to visualize how planting will look at all stages in its development and at all seasons. So many factors are involved in plant selection that development of a planting plan is much like trying to solve a jigsaw puzzle.” “In the preliminary stages,” Minshall told a San Diego Tribune reporter in 1954, “I work with the building architect and show him where I’d like planting. I also decide where the paving and the playground should go.” Elsewhere, Minshall also explained that the landscape planning process entailed careful “study of anticipated student circulation or traffic flow.” Declaring her “philosophy” in 1974, Minshall argued that the “most important justification for

15 landscaping our schools . . . is the effect that an attractive, comfortable environment has on the emotional well-being of students and staff . . . children accustomed to a pleasant environment at school, will as adults take greater pride in their homes and community” (Minshall 1974:1, 4 [quoted]; San Diego Tribune 1954; SDUSD 1967).

References

Baker, Lindsay 2012 A History of School Design and its Indoor Environmental Standards, 1900 to Today. January 2012. National Clearing House for Educational Facilities, National Institute of Building Sciences. Available: http://www.ncef.org/pubs/greenschoolshistory.pdf. Accessed October 30, 2012.

Bederman, Gail 1995 Manliness and Civilization: A Cultural History of Gender and Race in the United States, 1880-1917. University of Chicago Press. Chicago, Illinois.

Bowers, C.A. 1967 “The Ideologies of Progressive Education.” History of Education Quarterly. 7 (Winter 1967): 452-473.

Brown, Joanne 1988 “’A is for Atom, B is for Bomb: Civil Defense in American Public Education, 1947-1963,” Journal of American History, 75 (June, 1988): 68-90.

City of San Diego 2007 San Diego Modernism Historic Context Statement. Prepared by the City of San Diego Historical Resources Board, City of San Diego Planning and Community Investment Department, and Heritage Architecture and Planning, for submission to the State of California, Office of Historic Preservation, San Diego, California, available: http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1054/ files/san%20diego%20modenism%20context.pdf. Accessed June, 2012.

Dalberg, Pat ca. 1975 “La Jolla High Homecoming Last for Old Buildings.” News Clip from Unspecified Newspaper, Box 87—Schools—G-L, San Diego History Center.

Department of General Services, State of California 2012 Department of General Services Webpage—Student Safety—Section 7—Design to Maximize Student Safety—The Field Act, available: http://www.excellence.dgs.ca.gov/ StudentSafety/S7_7-1.htm., accessed July 20, 2012

Gelernter, Mark 1999 A History of American Architecture: Buildings in their Cultural and Technological Context. University Press of New England. Lebanon, New Hampshire.

Hendrick, Irving J. 1974 “California’s Response to the ‘New Education’ in the 1930s.” California Historical Quarterly. 53 (Spring, 1974): 25-40.

Heumann, Leslie, and Anne Doehne 2002a Historic Context Statement: Los Angeles Unified School District, Prepared by Science Applications International Corporation for Los Angeles Unified School District, March, 2002. Available: www.laschools.org/historic-survey/historic-context.pdf. Accessed June, 2012.

2002b Historic Schools of the Los Angeles Unified School District. March 2002. Prepared by Science Applications International Corporation for the J. Paul Getty Trust and the Los Angeles Unified School District by Science. Available: http://www.laschools.org/employee/design/fs- studies-and-reports/download/LAUSD_Presentation_March_2002.pdf?version_id=1895945. Accessed July 15, 2012.

Hyatt, Edward, Lewis P. Hobart, Chas. S. Kaiser, John W. Woollett, J.J. Donovan, and C.H. Cheney 1914 School Architecture in California. Superintendent of Public Instruction and California State Printing Office. Sacramento, California.

Kistner, Theodore C. 1915 “Seven Schools Built in Year.” San Diego Union, January 1, 1915. News Clip from Box 88—Schools—Miscellaneous No. 2, San Diego History Center.

Leighninger, Jr., Robert D. 1996 “Cultural Infrastructure: The Legacy of New Deal Public Space.” Journal of Architectural Education, 49 (May, 1996): 226-36.

May, Vonn Marie n.d. “Clyde Hufbauer, 1911-1993.” Modern San Diego Real Estate Website— Architects— Clyde Hufbauer. Available: http://www.modernsandiego.com/. Accessed August 8, 2012.

McElvaine, Robert S. 1984 The Great Depression: America,1929-1941. Times Books. New York.

Mehren, Peter. 1972a “San Diego Schools Curriculum Project of the WPA.” Journal of San Diego History. 18 (Spring, 1972). Available: http://www.sandiegohistory.org/journal/72spring/schools.htm. Accessed November 8, 2012.

1972b “The WPA Federal Arts Project in San Diego.” Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of History. University of California, Davis.

Minshall, Jane 1974 Report on Land & Facilities Planning, SDUSD Business Services Division. September 24, 1974. Bio Folder 156: Mil-Moe, San Diego History Center.

Ogata, Amy F. 2008 “Building for Learning in Postwar American Elementary Schools.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians. 67 (December, 2008): 562-91.

Pitman, Todd n.d. “Lloyd Pietrantonio Ruocco, 1907-1981.” Modern San Diego Real Estate Website—Architects—Lloyd Pietrantonio Ruocco. Available: http://www.modernsandiego. com/LloydRuocco.html. Accessed August, 2012.

Ruocco, Lloyd 1951 Kindergarten Addition Hamilton School, Elevations—Sections. Sheet 3 of 15. August 24, 1951. On file at the Architectural Archives of the SDUSD Maintenance and Operations Center. San Diego, California.

San Diego History Center n.d. Donal Hord Self-Guided Tour, available: http://www.sandiegohistory.org/hord /hordtour.htm. Accessed November 8, 2012.

San Diego Unified School District (SDUSD) 1954 100 Years of Public Education in San Diego, July 1, 1854 to June 30, 1954: San Diego City Schools Report to the Community, 1954, available: http://www.sandi.net/page/25, accessed July 20, 2012.

1967 Personnel Biographical Information. Jane Minshall. April 14, 1967. Bio Folder 156: Mil- Moe, San Diego History Center.

2007 Small Scale Plot Plan for Franklin Elementary School. May 5. On File at the SDUSD Maintenance and Operations Center, San Diego, California.

2013a San Diego Unified School District: 2013-2014 Attendance Boundaries. Electronic document, http://www.sandi.net/page/1179, accessed November 8, 2013.

2013b About San Diego Unified School District. Electronic document, http://www.sandi.net/page/21, accessed November 13, 2013.

San Diego Union 1940 “New Buildings are Under Way at Franklin.” San Diego Union, October 20, 1940. News Clip from Box 87—Schools—A-F, San Diego History Center.

1941 “Architect Fees Set for Defense Project Schools.” San Diego Union, October 21, 1941: 3.

1973 “Three Schools Here Must Be Demolished: Hoover, Point Loma, Roosevelt Face Replacement, in 1975-76.” San Diego Union, July 4, 1973. News Clip from Box 88—Schools— Miscellaneous No. 2, San Diego History Center.

San Diego Tribune 1954 “San Diego Schools Landscaping Begins on Woman’s Drafting Board.” San Diego Tribune, November 30, 1954. News Clip from Bio Folder 156: Mil-Moe, San Diego History Center.

1993 “Clyde Hufbauer, 82: designed many San Diego area schools,” San Diego Tribune, December 25, 1993. News Clip from Bio Folder 115: Hos-Hum, San Diego History Center.

Sanborn Map Company 1906 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of San Diego, California. Sheet 43. Available at San Francisco Public Library Database Web Portal: http://sanborn.umi.com.ezproxy.sfpl.org/. Accessed November 11, 2012.

1921 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of San Diego, California. Volume 1, Sheet 19. Available at San Francisco Public Library Database Web Portal: http://sanborn.umi.com.ezproxy.sfpl.org/. Accessed January 10, 2012.

1926 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of La Jolla, California. Sheet 23. Available at San Francisco Public Library Database Web Portal: http://sanborn.umi.com.ezproxy.sfpl.org/. Accessed January 10, 2012.

1940a Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of San Diego, California. Volume 2, Sheet 299I. Available at San Francisco Public Library Database Web Portal: http://sanborn.umi.com.ezproxy.sfpl.org/. Accessed November 11, 2012.

1940b Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of San Diego, California. Volume 1, Sheet 411. Available at San Francisco Public Library Database Web Portal: http://sanborn.umi.com.ezproxy.sfpl.org/. Accessed November 7, 2012.

Scarr, Lew 1956 “Schoolmen Praise Portables.” San Diego Tribune, March 12, 1956. News Clip from Box 87—Schools—A-F, San Diego History Center.

Smyth, William E. 1908 “Chapter 2: Schools and Education.” Excerpt from History of San Diego, 1542-1908, 568- 581, with photographs at San Diego History Center website: http://www.sandiegohistory.org/ books/smythe/6-2.htm, accessed November 7, 2012.

Teaford, John C. 1993 The Twentieth-Century American City. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.

Wilson, Harlan Leffingwell 1942 A History of the San Diego City Schools from 1542 to 1942 with Emphasis upon the Curriculum. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Education, University of Southern California.

Zellie, Carole 2005 Minneapolis Public Schools Historic Context Study. Prepared by Landscape Research LLC for the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission, Minneapolis Minnesota, April 2005. Available: http://mpshistory.mpls.k12.mn.us/uploads/mplspublicschoolstdy_2005.pdf. Accessed July 22, 2012.

[This page intentionally left blank.]

ATTACHMENT 2

DPR Forms

[This page intentionally left blank.]

6WDWHRI&DOLIRUQLD±7KH5HVRXUFHV$JHQF\3ULPDU\BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB '(3$570(172)3$5.6$1'5(&5($7,21+5,BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 35,0$5<5(&25' 7ULQRPLDOBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 6WDWXV&RGH &6 2WKHU/LVWLQJVBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 5HYLHZ&RGHBBBBBBBBBB5HYLHZHUBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB'DWHBBBBBBBBBBB

3DJH RI 5HVRXUFH1DPHRU $VVLJQHGE\UHFRUGHU $XGXERQ(OHPHQWDU\6FKRRO

32WKHU,GHQWLILHU 3/RFDWLRQ1RWIRU3XEOLFDWLRQ8QUHVWULFWHG D&RXQW\6DQ'LHJR DQG 3EDQG3FRU3G$WWDFKD/RFDWLRQ0DSDVQHFHVVDU\ E86*6¶4XDG1DWLRQDO&LW\'DWH 35 765:BBB¼RI6HF1$ 0LVVLRQ6DQ'LHJR/DQG*UDQW %0 F$GGUHVV6DQ9LFHQWH6WUHHW&LW\6DQ'LHJR=LS G870 JLYHPRUHWKDQRQHIRUODUJHDQGRUOLQHDUUHVRXUFHV =RQHP(P1 H2WKHU/RFDWLRQDO'DWD HJSDUFHOGLUHFWLRQVWRUHVRXUFHHOHYDWLRQHWFDVDSSURSULDWH

3D'HVFULSWLRQ 'HVFULEHUHVRXUFHDQGLWVPDMRUHOHPHQWV,QFOXGHGHVLJQPDWHULDOVFRQGLWLRQDOWHUDWLRQVVL]HVHWWLQJDQGERXQGDULHV $XGXERQ(OHPHQWDU\6FKRRORFFXSLHVDQDSSUR[LPDWHO\DFUHSURSHUW\ORFDWHGLQWKH&LW\RI6DQ'LHJR¶V6N\OLQH 3DUDGLVH+LOOVFRPPXQLW\SODQQLQJDUHD7KHVFKRROIURQWV6DQ9LFHQWH6WUHHWDQGLVERUGHUHGRQWKHZHVWE\%RQVDOO 6WUHHW/DQGVFDSLQJLQWKHIRUPRIODZQVWUHHVDQGFRQFUHWHZDONZD\VVHSDUDWHVWKHEXLOGLQJVIURP6DQ9LFHQWHDQG %RQVDOO6WUHHWV$XGXERQ(OHPHQWDU\6FKRRO¶VRULJLQDOEXLOGLQJVIRUPDQ/VKDSHGFRPSOH[WKHQRUWKZHVWFRUQHURI ZKLFKLVVLWXDWHGQHDUWKHFRUQHURI6DQ9LFHQWHDQG%RQVDOO6WUHHWV7KHFRPSOH[DOVRLQFOXGHVWZREXLOGLQJVFRQVWUXFWHG DIWHUDQGSRUWDEOHEXLOGLQJV VHHSDJH&RQWLQXDWLRQ6KHHW

3E5HVRXUFH$WWULEXWHV /LVWDWWULEXWHVDQGFRGHV +3(GXFDWLRQDO%XLOGLQJ 35HVRXUFHV3UHVHQW %XLOGLQJ 6WUXFWXUH 2EMHFW 6LWH 'LVWULFW (OHPHQWRI'LVWULFW 2WKHU ,VRODWHVHWF 3E'HVFULSWLRQRI3KRWR 9LHZGDWH DFFHVVLRQ 3KRWRJUDSK0DLQHQWUDQFH IURPFRUQHURI6DQ9LFHQWHDQG%RQVDOO 6WUHHWVORRNLQJVRXWKHDVW SKRWRJUDSKV FRQWLQXHGRQSDJH&RQWLQXDWLRQ 6KHHW 3'DWH&RQVWUXFWHG$JHDQG6RXUFHV +LVWRULF3UHKLVWRULF%RWK VHH UHIHUHQFH OLVW EHJLQQLQJ RQ SDJH&RQWLQXDWLRQ6KHHW 32ZQHUDQG$GGUHVV 6DQ'LHJR8QLILHG6FKRRO'LVWULFW 5XIIQHU6WUHHW 6DQ'LHJR&$

35HFRUGHGE\ 1DPHDIILOLDWLRQDGGUHVV 7LPRWK\

3'DWH5HFRUGHG2FWREHU 36XUYH\7\SH 'HVFULEH ,QWHQVLYH

3 5HSRUW &LWDWLRQ &LWH VXUYH\ UHSRUW DQG RWKHU VRXUFHV RU HQWHU ³QRQH´ ,&) ,QWHUQDWLRQDO ,601' IRU WKH $XGXERQ (OHPHQWDU\6FKRRO:KROH6LWH0RGHUQL]DWLRQ3URMHFW ,&) 6DQ'LHJR&$3UHSDUHGIRUWKH6DQ'LHJR8QLILHG 6FKRRO'LVWULFW

$WWDFKPHQWV121(/RFDWLRQ0DS6NHWFK0DS&RQWLQXDWLRQ6KHHW%XLOGLQJ6WUXFWXUHDQG2EMHFW5HFRUG$UFKDHRORJLFDO5HFRUG 'LVWULFW5HFRUG/LQHDU)HDWXUH5HFRUG0LOOLQJ6WDWLRQ5HFRUG5RFN$UW5HFRUG$UWLIDFW5HFRUG3KRWRJUDSK5HFRUG 2WKHU OLVW ______ '35$ 5HTXLUHG,QIRUPDWLRQ State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # ______DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ______BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD

Page 2 of 13 Status Code 3CS *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Audubon Elementary School

B1. Historic Name: Audubon Elementary School B2. Common Name: Audubon Elementary School B3. Original Use: Public school B4. Present Use: Public school *B5. Architectural Style: Late International Style, Mid-Century Modern *B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alteration, and date of alterations) Buildings A, B, C, D, and Kindergarten Building constructed 1955; Classroom Addition constructed 1957; Library constructed 2004 *B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location: *B8. Related Features:

B9. Architect: Samuel W. Hamill b. Builder: Chamco Construction Company *B10. Significance: Theme San Diego public school development Area San Diego Period of Significance 1955 Property Type Public high school facility: classroom building Applicable Criteria CRHR Criterion 3 (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.)

Audubon Elementary School’s original buildings (Buildings A, B, C, D and the Kindergarten Building) appear to meet the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) as a historic Mid-Century Modern school complex. None the campus’s other buildings appear to qualify for CRHR listing individually or as contributors to the historic 1955 portion of the school. Research on the history of Audubon Elementary School for this evaluation has included Google searches, consultation of as-built plans on file at the San Diego Unified School District Facilities and Maintenance and Operations Center’s Architectural Archives, and full-text searches of the historical San Diego Union using the Newsbank database available at Geisel Library on the University of California, San Diego campus. Audubon Elementary School has been evaluated with reference to a historic context produced by ICF International and ASM Affiliates for the San Diego Unified School District (SDUSD) titled, “Modern San Diego Public School Development.” A portion of the historic context addressing the post-World War II period of San Diego school development is included here (see page 7 Continuation Sheet).

B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) (Sketch Map with north arrow required.) *B12. References: See DPR Page 4 Sketch Map See page 20 Continuation Sheet

B13. Remarks:

*B14. Evaluator: Timothy Yates, Ph.D. ICF International

*Date of Evaluation: March 30, 2014

(This space reserved for official comments.)

DPR 523B (1/95) *Required Information 6WDWHRI&DOLIRUQLD7KH5HVRXUFH$JHQF\ 3ULPDU\ '(3$570(172)3$5.6$1'5(&5($7,21 LOCATION MAP 7ULQRPLDO

3DJHRI Resource Name or #: Audubon Elementary School

Map Name: 1DWLRQDO&LW\&$ Scale: Date of Map:

Audubon Elementary School

)HHW

'35- 5HTXLUHGLQIRUPDWLRQLVEROG 6WDWHRI&DOLIRUQLD±7KH5HVRXUFHV$JHQF\3ULPDU\BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB '(3$570(172)3$5.6$1'5(&5($7,21+5,BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 6.(7&+0$3 7ULQRPLDOBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

3DJH RI 5HVRXUFH1DPHRU $VVLJQHGE\UHFRUGHU $XGXERQ(OHPHQWDU\6FKRRO 'UDZQ%\ .&KPLHO 'DWHRI0DS1RYHPEHU

'35. 5HTXLUHG,QIRUPDWLRQ 6WDWHRI&DOLIRUQLD±7KH5HVRXUFHV$JHQF\3ULPDU\BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB '(3$570(172)3$5.6$1'5(&5($7,21+5,BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB &217,18$7,216+((7 7ULQRPLDO BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 3DJH RI 5HVRXUFH1DPHRU $VVLJQHGE\UHFRUGHU $XGXERQ(OHPHQWDU\6FKRRO 5HFRUGHGE\ 7

3D'HVFULSWLRQ FRQW

)RUWKHSXUSRVHVRIWKLVHYDOXDWLRQWKHVFKRRO¶VEXLOGLQJVDUHQDPHGEDVHGRQWKHDVEXLOWSODQV7KH\LQFOXGH %XLOGLQJ$ZKLFKIDFHV6DQ9LFHQWH6WUHHWDQGFRQWDLQV PRYLQJZHVWWRHDVW WKHDGPLQLVWUDWLRQZLQJDFODVVURRPDQG PHFKDQLFDOURRPDQDXGLWRULXPFDIHWHULDVSDFHDQGDNLWFKHQ&ODVVURRP%XLOGLQJV%&DQG'ZKLFKDUHDOLJQHGSDUDOOHO WR%RQVDOO6WUHHWDQGWKH.LQGHUJDUWHQ%XLOGLQJZKLFKLVORFDWHGLPPHGLDWHO\HDVWRI%XLOGLQJ$(DVWRIWKH.LQGHUJDUWHQ %XLOGLQJLVD&ODVVURRP$GGLWLRQFRQVWUXFWHGLQDQGD/LEUDU\%XLOGLQJFRQVWUXFWHGLQLVVLWXDWHGLPPHGLDWHO\ VRXWKHDVWRI&ODVVURRP%XLOGLQJ&5RZVRISRUWDEOHEXLOGLQJVFRQWDLQLQJFODVVURRPVZKLFKDUHDOLJQHGGLIIHUHQWO\WKDQ SRUWDEOHVSUHVHQWDWWKHVLWHLQDUHORFDWHGZHVWDQGVRXWKRI&ODVVURRP%XLOGLQJ&DQGHDVWRIWKH/LEUDU\7KH VFKRRO¶VOD\RXWLVLOOXVWUDWHGLQWKH6NHWFK0DSRQSDJH $XGXERQ(OHPHQWDU\6FKRRO¶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³GHFRUDWLRQ´LQWKHWUDGLWLRQDOVHQVHSDUWLFXODUO\GLUHFW GHFRUDWLYHUHIHUHQFHVWRHDUOLHUKLVWRULFDUFKLWHFWXUH 7KHODUJHVWEXLOGLQJZLWKLQ$XGXERQ(OHPHQWDU\6FKRRO¶VRULJLQDOFRPSOH[LV%XLOGLQJ$ZKLFKFRQVLVWVRIPXOWLSOH UHFWLOLQHDUYROXPHVDUUDQJHGLQDQLUUHJXODUSODQ 3KRWRJUDSKV 6OLJKWO\WH[WXUHGVWXFFRFRYHUVPRVWRIWKH EXLOGLQJ¶VH[WHULRUZDOOVXUIDFHV7KHDGPLQLVWUDWLRQZLQJSURMHFWVQRUWKZDUGDWWKHZHVWHQGRI%XLOGLQJ$¶VSODQ 3KRWRJUDSKV ,WIHDWXUHVDQH[WUHPHO\ORZSLWFKHGVKHGURRIZLWKEURDGO\RYHUKDQJLQJHDYHVDQGFDQWHGIDVFLDDVZHOO DVRULJLQDOVWHHOIL[HGDZQLQJRUKRSSHUZLQGRZVDUUDQJHGLQODUJHVTXDUHVKDSHGEDQNVRUULEERQVLQFOXGLQJZUDSSLQJ FRUQHUZLQGRZV3HUSHQGLFXODUO\SURMHFWLQJZDOOHOHPHQWVKHOSVXSSRUWWKHURRIRYHUKDQJDWWKHDGPLQLVWUDWLRQZLQJ¶VHDVW DQGQRUWKH[WHULRUZDOOV 3KRWRJUDSK $WWKHQRUWKVLGHWKHSURMHFWLQJZDOOHOHPHQWIRUPVWKHHQGRIDSODQWHUWKDWOLNHWKH ZLQGRZDWWKDWORFDWLRQZUDSVDURXQGWKHQRUWKHDVWFRUQHURIWKHDGPLQLVWUDWLRQZLQJDGMDFHQWWRDFRQFUHWHZDONZD\WKDW H[WHQGVDORQJWKHFRQWRXURIWKHEXLOGLQJ¶VQRUWKVLGH7KHDGPLQLVWUDWLRQZLQJ¶VPDLQRIILFHHQWU\DW%XLOGLQJ$¶VZHVW HOHYDWLRQLVVHFXUHGE\DQLQVWLWXWLRQDOJUDGHGRRUZLWKJOD]LQJDQGIHDWXUHVDWUDQVRPDQGZRRGIUDPHIL[HGVLGHOLJKWVRQ LWVQRUWKVLGH 3KRWRJUDSK $QXSSHUULEERQRIRULJLQDOVWHHOIUDPHZLQGRZVZLWKKRSSHUXQLWVH[WHQGVWRWKHVRXWKIURP WKHHQWU\7KHPDLQRIILFHHQWUDQFHLVDSSURDFKHGYLDDFRQFUHWHZDONZD\IODQNHGE\QRQRULJLQDOVWHHOUDLOLQJ 7KHZDONZD\H[WHQGVVRXWKDORQJWKHZHVWHOHYDWLRQRI%XLOGLQJ$XQGHUDQDWWDFKHGVKHOWHULQJFDQRS\ZLWKFDQWHGIDVFLD DQGVWXFFRFODGUHFWDQJXODUVODE³FROXPQ´VXSSRUWVDWWKHRXWHUHGJHVZKLFKIRUPDQDUFDGHWKDWPDUNVWKHVFKRRO¶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¶VODUJHVWYROXPHFRQWDLQVWKHDXGLWRULXPFDIHWHULDZKLFKKDVD IODWURRIZLWKDORZSDUDSHWDQGDVPDOOSURMHFWLRQDWWKHZHVWHQGWRSSHGZLWKDVWHHOSLSHFKLPQH\ 3KRWRJUDSKV $ VPDOOXWLOLW\DGGLWLRQVHFXUHGE\QRQRULJLQDOIHQFHH[WHQGVZHVWIURPWKHDXGLWRULXPFDIHWHULDYROXPHDWWKHQRUWKHOHYDWLRQ QHDUWKHODUJHEDQNRIFODVVURRPZLQGRZV SKRWRJUDSK $OHQJWK\PRGHUDWHO\SURMHFWLQJFDQWLOHYHUHGRYHUKDQJDERYH UXQVDORQJWKHQRUWKHOHYDWLRQRIWKHDXGLWRULXPFDIHWHULDYROXPHRYHUPDQLFXUHGKHGJHVUHLQIRUFLQJWKHEXLOGLQJ¶V KRUL]RQWDOHPSKDVLVDWLWVPRVWYHUWLFDOO\SURPLQHQWYROXPH7KHEXLOGLQJ¶VHDVWHUQPRVWRQHVWRU\UHFWDQJXODUYROXPH SURMHFWVHDVWDQGVOLJKWO\QRUWKIURPDXGLWRULXPFDIHWHULDYROXPHDQGFRQWDLQVWKHVFKRRO¶VNLWFKHQ 3KRWRJUDSK $FDQWHG FDQRS\SURMHFWLRQZLWKFDQWHGIDVFLDVKHOWHUVDQHQWU\ZLWKDWZROHDILQVWLWXWLRQDOJUDGHGRRUDWWKHHDVWHQGRIWKH DXGLWRULXPFDIHWHULDDORQJWKHQRUWKHOHYDWLRQ 3KRWRJUDSKV 7KHZHVWHQGRIWKHFDQWHGFDQRS\KDVWKUHHVWHHOSLSH FROXPQVXSSRUWVFRQQHFWHGDWWKHWRSVE\ZKDWDSSHDUVWREHDVWHHOSDQHO8QGHUQHDWKWKHHDVWHQGRIWKLVFDQRS\LVD ZHGJHVKDSHGZDOOSURMHFWLRQZLWKDGHFRUDWLYHJULGSDWWHUQRIVFRUHGSODVWHUDQGDQHQWU\VHFXUHGE\DVLQJOHOHDI LQVWLWXWLRQDOJUDGHGRRU7KHEXLOGLQJ¶VHDVWHOHYDWLRQDWWKHNLWFKHQKDVPXOWLSOHHQWULHVZLWKLQVWLWXWLRQDOJUDGHGRRUVDQG '35/ 5HTXLUHG,QIRUPDWLRQ 6WDWHRI&DOLIRUQLD±7KH5HVRXUFHV$JHQF\3ULPDU\BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB '(3$570(172)3$5.6$1'5(&5($7,21+5,BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB &217,18$7,216+((7 7ULQRPLDO BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 3DJH RI 5HVRXUFH1DPHRU $VVLJQHGE\UHFRUGHU $XGXERQ(OHPHQWDU\6FKRRO 5HFRUGHGE\ 7

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¶VZHVWURRIRYHUKDQJWR EORFNVXQOLJKWIURPFODVVURRPVZLQGRZVGRHVQRWDSSHDUWREHRULJLQDOEXWPD\KDYHEHHQLQVWDOOHGVRRQDIWHUWKHEXLOGLQJ ZDVFRQVWUXFWHG 3KRWRJUDSK %XLOGLQJV%DQG&DQG%XLOGLQJV$DQG%DUHDWWDFKHGDWWKHURRIEHWZHHQFLUFXODWLRQ FRUULGRUVWKDWIRUPEUHH]HZD\V&DQRSLHVDWWDFKHGWRWKHZHVWEUHH]HZD\RSHQLQJVH[WHQGWRWKHZHVWDQGDWWDFKHGWR %XLOGLQJ' 3KRWRJUDSK $SDUWIURPWKHUHFWDQJXODUVWXFFRFODGVODEVXSSRUWVDWWKHVFKRRO¶VPDLQHQWU\DUHDDUFDGHDW WKHZHVWVLGHRI%XLOGLQJ$DQGWKHQRUWKVLGHRI%XLOGLQJ'WKHVFKRRO¶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¶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³EDIIOHZDOOV´WKDWEORFNVXQOLJKWDWFHUWDLQ DQJOHV 3KRWRJUDSK :HVWRIWKH.LQGHUJDUWHQ%XLOGLQJLVD&ODVVURRP$GGLWLRQEXLOGLQJFRQVWUXFWHGVHYHUDO\HDUVDIWHUDQGVFKRRO¶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¶VRULJLQDOEXLOGLQJVDQGLWVORFDWLRQVRXWKRIWKHRULJLQDO/VKDSHGVFKRROFRPSOH[NHHSVLWIURPLPSLQJLQJRQWKH VHWWLQJDQGIHHOLQJRIWKHRULJLQDOEXLOGLQJV :HVWDQGVRXWK%XLOGLQJ&DQGVRXWKDQGHDVWRIWKH/LEUDU\DUHQXPHURXVSRUWDEOHEXLOGLQJV 3KRWRJUDSKV 0RVWRI WKHVHDUHWRSSHGE\ORZSLWFKHGVKHGURRIVZLWKPRGHUDWHO\SURMHFWLQJHDYHRYHUKDQJVDWIURQWHOHYDWLRQVZKLFKKDYH EDQGVRIDOXPLQXPIUDPHZLQGRZVVWDFNHGWZRKLJKZLWKZRRGVXUURXQGVDQGPXOOLRQVDQGVWHHOUDPSVWKDWOHDGWRRIIVHW '35/ 5HTXLUHG,QIRUPDWLRQ 6WDWHRI&DOLIRUQLD±7KH5HVRXUFHV$JHQF\3ULPDU\BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB '(3$570(172)3$5.6$1'5(&5($7,21+5,BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB &217,18$7,216+((7 7ULQRPLDO BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 3DJH RI 5HVRXUFH1DPHRU $VVLJQHGE\UHFRUGHU $XGXERQ(OHPHQWDU\6FKRRO 5HFRUGHGE\ 7

HQWULHVZLWKLQVWLWXWLRQDOJUDGHGRRUV 3KRWRJUDSK 7KHUHDUHOHYDWLRQVKDYHULEERQVRIORXYHUHGZLQGRZVZLWKZRRG VXUURXQGVDQGPXOOLRQVSRVLWLRQHGMXVWEHORZWKHURRIOLQH 3KRWRJUDSK 7KHQRUWKHDVWHUQURZRISRUWDEOHEXLOGLQJVKDYH H[WUHPHO\ORZSLWFKHGJDEOHURRIVVWHHOUDPSVDQGUDLOLQJOLPLWHGDOXPLQXPZLQGRZVYHUWLFDOFRPSRVLWHZDOOFODGGLQJDQG SURMHFWLQJHDYHVDWWKHIURQWHOHYDWLRQV 3KRWRJUDSK

%6LJQLILFDQFH FRQW

$6DQ'LHJRSRSXODWLRQWKDWVWRRGDWLQMXVWSULRUWR:RUOG:DU,,JUHZWRE\0LOLWDU\ H[SDQVLRQJURZWKRIWKHGHIHQVHLQGXVWU\DQGWKHEDE\ERRPDOOFRQWULEXWHGWRWKLVDQGVXEVHTXHQWSRSXODWLRQJURZWK %RQGLVVXHVRILQLQDQGLQKHOSHGIXQGERWKFRQVWUXFWLRQRIQHZ VFKRROVDQGLPSURYHPHQWVWRH[LVWLQJRQHV6WLOOWKURXJKRXWWKHVDQGVSODQQLQJDQGFRQVWUXFWLRQRISHUPDQHQW IDFLOLWLHVFRXOGQRWNHHSSDFHZLWKULVLQJVWXGHQWSRSXODWLRQ'XULQJ:RUOG:DU,,6'86'ZDVWKHQDWLRQ¶VILUVWVFKRROGLVWULFW WRGHVLJQDQGEXLOGSRUWDEOHFODVVURRPV &LW\RI6DQ'LHJR%6FDUU 3ULRUWRDQGGXULQJ:RUOG :DU,,PRVW6DQ'LHJRVFKRROVZHUHGHYHORSHGWRVHUYHVWUHHWFDUVXEXUEVVXFKDV/D-ROOD3RLQW/RPD.HQVLQJWRQ1RUWK 3DUNDQG&LW\+HLJKWVRUWRVHUYHWKHSODQQHGGHIHQVHZRUNHUFRPPXQLW\RI/LQGD9LVWD'XULQJWKHVKRZHYHUWKH FRQVWUXFWLRQRIQHZSXEOLFVFKRROFRPSOH[HVWRRNSODFHPDLQO\LQ6DQ'LHJR¶VJURZLQJQHZDXWRPRELOHVXEXUEVIXUWKHUIURP WKHFLW\¶VXUEDQFRUH²3DFLILF%HDFK%D\3DUN&ODLUHPRQW6HUUD0HVDWKH&ROOHJHDQG)DLUPRQWDUHDVDQGVXEXUEV IXUWKHUHDVWDQGVRXWK &LW\RI6DQ'LHJR%DQG5HVLGHQWLDO'HYHORSPHQW3DWWHUQV0DS

'XULQJWKHLPPHGLDWHSRVWZDU\HDUVWKH,QWHUQDWLRQDOVW\OHKDGDJUHDWHULQIOXHQFHRQWKHDUFKLWHFWXUHRIQHZSXEOLF VFKRROVORFDOO\DQGDFURVVWKHFRXQWU\EXW6DQ'LHJRVFKRRODUFKLWHFWVTXLFNO\EHJDQLQWHUPLQJOLQJWKH,QWHUQDWLRQDOVW\OH ZLWKQHZHUDUFKLWHFWXUDOWUHQGVWRSURGXFHVFKRROGHVLJQVEHVWFDWHJRUL]HGDV³0LG&HQWXU\0RGHUQ´&RPSDUHGWRWKHODUJH PXOWLVWRU\VRPHWLPHVPRQXPHQWDOEXLOGLQJVWKDWGRPLQDWHGPRVWSUH:RUOG:DU,,SXEOLFVFKRROVDQGNHSWVWXGHQWV LQGRRUVPRVWRIWKHGD\SRVWZDUVFKRROFRPSOH[HVGHYHORSHGLQWKHVXEXUEVZRXOGKDYHGUDPDWLFDOO\GLIIHUHQWSODQVDQG VSDWLDOFRQILJXUDWLRQVUHIOHFWLQJWKHNLQGRILQGRRURXWGRRUSODQQLQJDQGXVHUH[SHULHQFHWKDWDIHZLQQRYDWLYH0RGHUQLVW DUFKLWHFWVKDGFUHDWHGLQSUH:RUOG:DU,,VFKRROGHVLJQV

([DPSOHVRIVXFKSUHZDULQQRYDWLRQLQFOXGHG5LFKDUG1HXWUD¶VLQIOXHQWLDO,QWHUQDWLRQDO6W\OHDGGLWLRQWR/RV$QJHOHV¶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³6FKRRODUFKLWHFWXUH´ZURWH%XUVFK³PXVWUHFRJQL]H>WKDW@ LWVIRUPVGLPHQVLRQVFRORUPDWHULDOVDQGWH[WXUHDUHFDSDEOHRIFUHDWLQJDQHQYLURQPHQWZKLFKHLWKHUDWWUDFWVRUUHSHOVWKH FKLOG7KHVFKRROSODQWGHVLJQHGIRUWKHFKLOGLVXQSUHWHQWLRXVRSHQFRORUIXOVSUHDGRXWSODQQLQJSHUPLWVKLPWREORZRII VWHDPDQGEUHDWKIUHVKDLUWKHJHQHUDOHQYLURQPHQWLVQRWIRUELGGLQJDQGPRQXPHQWDOEXWLVLQIRUPDODQGGHYRLGRI DIIHFWDWLRQDVWKHFKLOGKLPVHOI´ 2JDWD>TXRWH@ &RPSOHWHGLQLQDUFKLWHFW-RKQ/\RQ5HLG¶V LQIOXHQWLDO0RQWHFLWR6FKRROLQ0DUWLQH]&DOLIRUQLDHPERGLHGWKHLGHDOVRXWOLQHGE\%XUVFK7KHVFKRROFRQVLVWHGRISDUDOOHO URZVRIORZULVHFODVVURRPEXLOGLQJVRSHQFLUFXODWLRQFRUULGRUVDQG/VKDSHGFODVVURRPVZLWKVKHOWHUHGJDUGHQVDQG\DUGV DOORIZKLFKDVDUFKLWHFWXUDOKLVWRULDQ$P\)2JDWDH[SODLQV³PD[LPL]HGVSDFHDQGWUDIILFIORZOLJKWDQGSURYLGHG LQWHJUDWHGDUHDVIRULQGRRUDQGRXWGRRUWHDFKLQJ´ 2JDWDTXRWHG

'XULQJWKHVQHZVFKRROVLWHVLQ6DQ'LHJR¶VH[SDQGLQJDXWRPRELOHVXEXUEVSURYLGHGRSSRUWXQLWLHVIRUVSDWLDO RUJDQL]DWLRQDORQJWKHOLQHVRI5HLG¶V0RQWHFLWR6FKRRO7KHPRQXPHQWDOPXOWLVWRU\VFKRROEXLOGLQJRISUHZDUGHFDGHV ZRXOGJLYHZD\WRVSUHDGRXWFDPSXVHVFRPSULVHGRIQXPHURXVORZVOXQJRIILFHDQGFODVVURRPEXLOGLQJVZLWKDPSOH ZLQGRZVDQGSHUKDSVDQDXGLWRULXPDQGJ\PQDVLXPEXLOWWRJUHDWHUKHLJKWV$V2JDWDH[SODLQVSRVWZDUVFKRRO ³DUFKLWHFWVDFURVVWKHFRXQWU\XVHGSRXUHGFRQFUHWHVODEVIRUORZULVHVWUXFWXUHVOLJKWZHLJKWVWHHOIUDPHVDQGH[SDQVHV RIJODVV´ZKLFKSURYLGHGIRUOHVVH[SHQVLYHEXLOGLQJFRVWVFRPSDUHGWRSUHZDUVFKRROV&LUFXODWLRQWKURXJKQHZVFKRRO IDFLOLWLHVZRXOGWDNHSODFHPDLQO\LQRSHQDLUFRUULGRUVFRYHUHGE\SURMHFWLQJHDYHVRUFDQRSLHVVXSSRUWHGE\FROXPQV XVXDOO\VWHHOSLSHFROXPQV:LWKLQD&ROG:DUFRQWH[WRIVWXGHQWVSHUIRUPLQJ³GXFNDQGFRYHU´GULOOVLQSUHSDUDWLRQIRU SRWHQWLDOQXFOHDUDWWDFNREVHUYHUVSUDLVHGWKHQHZ0LG&HQWXU\0RGHUQVFKRROVDVHDVLHUWRHYDFXDWHWKDQWKHROGHUODUJH '35/ 5HTXLUHG,QIRUPDWLRQ 6WDWHRI&DOLIRUQLD±7KH5HVRXUFHV$JHQF\3ULPDU\BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB '(3$570(172)3$5.6$1'5(&5($7,21+5,BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB &217,18$7,216+((7 7ULQRPLDO BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 3DJH RI 5HVRXUFH1DPHRU $VVLJQHGE\UHFRUGHU $XGXERQ(OHPHQWDU\6FKRRO 5HFRUGHGE\ 7

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an Diego Tribune

7KHRULJLQDOSRUWLRQRI$XGXERQ(OHPHQWDU\6FKRROZDVGHVLJQHGE\6DQ'LHJRPDVWHUDUFKLWHFW6DPXHO:+DPLOO+DPLOO VXEPLWWHGSODQVIRUWKHVFKRROWR6'86'LQ'HFHPEHU&KDPFR&RQVWUXFWLRQ&RPSDQ\EHJDQFRQVWUXFWLRQRIWKH RULJLQDOEXLOGLQJVLQ$SULODQGFRPSOHWHGWKHMRELQ-DQXDU\+DYLQJRFFXSLHGWHPSRUDU\EXLOGLQJVRQVLWHIRURYHU D\HDUILUVWWKURXJKWKLUGJUDGHVWXGHQWVDQGWHDFKHUVPRYHGLQWRWKHQHZSHUPDQHQWFODVVURRPVRQWKHODVWGD\RI-DQXDU\ )RXUWKWKURXJKVL[WKJUDGHVWXGHQWVDQGWHDFKHUVFRQWLQXHGWRRFFXS\WHPSRUDU\FODVVURRPEXLOGLQJV6'86'PRYHG WRSURYLGHSHUPDQHQWFODVVURRPVIRUIRXUWKWKURXJKVL[WKJUDGHVWXGHQWVDQGWHDFKHUVIROORZLQJDPLOOLRQERQGVDOH,Q 'HFHPEHU$UFKLWHFW-7KRPDV(UFKXORI6DQ'LHJRFRPSOHWHGVWDQGDUGL]HGSODQVIRUFRQVWUXFWLRQRIFODVVURRP DGGLWLRQVDWILYHVFKRROV$XGXERQ(OHPHQWDU\6FKRRO¶V&ODVVURRP$GGLWLRQEXLOGLQJZDVFRPSOHWHGLQ7KHVFKRRO¶V 3RVW0RGHUQ/LEUDU\EXLOGLQJZDVFRQVWUXFWHGLQ (UFKXO$%+DPLOO$)San Diego Union 6'86'

$XGXERQ(OHPHQWDU\6FKRROGRHVQRWDSSHDUWRKDYHDQ\GLUHFWDVVRFLDWLRQVZLWKVLJQLILFDQWHYHQWVRUSDWWHUQVRIHYHQWVLQ 6DQ'LHJR&DOLIRUQLDRU8QLWHG6WDWHVKLVWRU\$OWKRXJKWKHVFKRRO¶VGHYHORSPHQWRFFXUUHGLQDVVRFLDWLRQZLWK6DQ'LHJR¶V SRVW:RUOG:DU,,SHULRGRIH[SDQVLYHJURZWKDQGVXEXUEDQKRXVLQJFRQVWUXFWLRQVXFKDQDVVRFLDWLRQLVWRRFRPPRQSODFH WRFRQIHUKLVWRULFDOVLJQLILFDQFHRQWKHFDPSXV/LNHSXEOLFLQIUDVWUXFWXUHJHQHUDOO\VFKRROFRPSOH[HVDUHGHYHORSHGLQ DQWLFLSDWLRQRIJURZWKRUWRHQFRXUDJHRUDFFRPPRGDWHJURZWK:HUHDVVRFLDWLRQVZLWKDFRQFHSWOLNH³JURZWK´WUHDWHGDV TXDOLILFDWLRQIRUKLVWRULFDOVLJQLILFDQFHWKHQDOOEXLOGLQJVFRPSOH[HVDQGLQIUDVWUXFWXUHVXUYLYLQJIURPDQHUDFKDUDFWHUL]HG E\SRSXODWLRQJURZWKDQGUHODWHGSK\VLFDOJURZWKZRXOGEHHOLJLEOHIRUWKH&5+5%XLOGLQJVGHYHORSHGDWWKDWWLPHVKRXOG KDYHGLUHFWDVVRFLDWLRQVZLWKOHVVJHQHUDODQGPRUHSUHFLVHO\LGHQWLILDEOHHYHQWVRUSDWWHUQVRIHYHQWVWKDQ³JURZWK´WREH FRQVLGHUHGHOLJLEOHIRUWKH&5+5XQGHU&ULWHULRQ5HVHDUFKIRUWKLVHYDOXDWLRQKDV\LHOGHGQRHYLGHQFHWKDWWKH$XGXERQ (OHPHQWDU\6FKRROFDPSXVRUDQ\RILWVH[LVWLQJLQGLYLGXDOEXLOGLQJVKDYHDVVRFLDWLRQVZLWKLPSRUWDQWHGXFDWLRQDO LQQRYDWLRQVRURWKHUGLVFHUQLEO\VLJQLILFDQWKLVWRULFDOHYHQWVRUSDWWHUQVRIHYHQWVLQWKHVDQGV)RUWKHVHUHDVRQV QHLWKHUWKH$XGXERQ(OHPHQWDU\6FKRROFDPSXVDVDZKROHQRUDQ\RILWVLQGLYLGXDOEXLOGLQJVDSSHDUVWRPHHW&ULWHULRQIRU OLVWLQJRQWKH&5+5

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¶V&ODVVURRP$GGLWLRQLVQRWFRQVLGHUHGD6DQ 'LHJRDUHDPDVWHUDUFKLWHFW6DPXHO:+DPLOOZKRGHVLJQHGWKHVFKRRO¶VRULJLQDOEXLOGLQJVLVFRQVLGHUHGD6DQ 'LHJRDUHDPDVWHUDUFKLWHFW%RUQLQ$UL]RQDRQ$SULO+DPLOOPRYHGDVDFKLOGZLWKKLVIDPLO\WR6DQ'LHJRLQ )DVFLQDWHGE\WKH6SDQLVK&RORQLDO5HYLYDODUFKLWHFWXUHRI6DQ'LHJR¶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¶V&RXQW\ '35/ 5HTXLUHG,QIRUPDWLRQ 6WDWHRI&DOLIRUQLD±7KH5HVRXUFHV$JHQF\3ULPDU\BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB '(3$570(172)3$5.6$1'5(&5($7,21+5,BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB &217,18$7,216+((7 7ULQRPLDO BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 3DJH RI 5HVRXUFH1DPHRU $VVLJQHGE\UHFRUGHU $XGXERQ(OHPHQWDU\6FKRRO 5HFRUGHGE\ 7

$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ%XLOGLQJ DQGHYHQWXDOO\EHFDPHWKHFKLHIGHVLJQHUIRUWKHSURMHFW+DPLOO¶VPDVWHUDUFKLWHFWVWDWXVGHULYHV PDLQO\IURPKLV6SDQLVK&RORQLDO5HYLYDOVW\OHDUFKLWHFWXUDOGHVLJQVGXULQJWKHSUH:RUOG:DU,,SHULRGEXWKHFRQWLQXHG ZRUNLQJDVDQDUFKLWHFWDIWHUWKHZDUDQGGHVLJQHG0LG&HQWXU\0RGHUQEXLOGLQJVDQGFRPSOH[HV+DPLOOZHQWRQWRVHUYH DVWKHDUFKLWHFWIRUWKH8QLRQ7LWOHDQG7UXVW&RPSDQ\DQGLQKHGHVLJQHGWKH9HWHUDQV¶:DU0HPRULDO%XLOGLQJLQ %DOERD3DUN+HVXEVHTXHQWO\VHUYHGDVOHDGDUFKLWHFWIRUWKH&LYLF&HQWHUDQG&RPPXQLW\&RQFRXUVH%\WKHWLPH+DPLOO UHWLUHGLQKHKDGILUPO\GLVWLQJXLVKHGKLPVHOIDVERWKDQLQIOXHQWLDODUFKLWHFWDQGDVDFLYLFOHDGHUWKURXJKKLV DVVRFLDWLRQVZLWK6DQ'LHJDQV,QFWKH&RPPLWWHHRIDQGWKH$PHULFDQ,QVWLWXWHRI$UFKLWHFWV )UHHOH\HWDO

$XGXERQ(OHPHQWDU\6FKRRO¶VRULJLQDOFRPSOH[ %XLOGLQJV$%&'DQGWKH.LQGHUJDUWHQ%XLOGLQJ DSSHDUVWREH HOLJLEOHIRUOLVWLQJRQWKH&5+5XQGHU&ULWHULRQDWWKHORFDOOHYHORIVLJQLILFDQFHDVDQRWHZRUWK\H[DPSOHRI6DQ'LHJR DUHDPDVWHUDUFKLWHFW6DPXHO:+DPLOO¶VODWHFDUHHUZRUNLQWKH0RGHUQLVWLGLRPDQGDVDQH[FHOOHQWH[DPSOHRI0LG &HQWXU\0RGHUQVFKRRODUFKLWHFWXUHDQGSODQQLQJ7KHSHULRGRIVLJQLILFDQFHLVWKH\HDURIWKHRULJLQDOFRPSOH[¶V FRQVWUXFWLRQ:KLOHFLUFXODWLRQFDQRSLHVZLWKVWHHOSLSHFROXPQVXSSRUWVDUHW\SLFDOHOHPHQWVRIVVFKRROVLQ6DQ'LHJR DQGHOVHZKHUHWKHDUFDGHDUUDQJHPHQWRIVKHOWHULQJFDQRSLHVZLWKUHFWDQJXODUVODEVXSSRUWVDW$XGXERQ¶VPDLQHQWU\DUHD LVDGLVWLQFWLYHHOHPHQWRIWKHVFKRRO¶VGHVLJQWKDWPD\UHSUHVHQWD0RGHUQLVWYDULDWLRQRQWKHDUFDGHVRI6SDQLVK&RORQLDO 5HYLYDODUFKLWHFWXUHZKLFK+DPLOO¶VVSHFLDOL]HGLQGXULQJWKHSUH:RUOG:DU,,SHULRG$OWKRXJKSRVVLEO\QRWH[FOXVLYHWR $XGXERQ(OHPHQWDU\6FKRROWKHFODVVURRPEXLOGLQJV¶H[FHSWLRQDOO\ODUJHFRQWLQXRXVZLQGRZVDORQJZHVWHOHYDWLRQV UHSUHVHQWDKLJKO\GLVWLQFWLYH0LG&HQWXU\0RGHUQIHDWXUH$GGLWLRQDOGLVWLQFWLYHFKDUDFWHULVWLFVLQFOXGHWKHRWKHUODUJHEDQNV RIRULJLQDOVWHHOIUDPHZLQGRZVWKHFRUQHUZLQGRZDW%XLOGLQJ$¶VDGPLQLVWUDWLRQZLQJWKHVOLJKWO\SLWFKHGDQGRYHUKDQJLQJ VKHGURRIOLQHVWKHSHUSHQGLFXODUZDOOHOHPHQWVDWWKHDGPLQLVWUDWLRQZLQJDQG.LQGHUJDUWHQ%XLOGLQJDQGWKHORQJ FDQWLOHYHUHGFDQRS\WKHFDQWHGFDQRS\HOHPHQWDQGWKHJULGVFRUHGZDOORQWKHQRUWKHOHYDWLRQRI%XLOGLQJ$DWWKH DXGLWRULXPFDIHWHULD7KHVHHOHPHQWVDORQJZLWKWKHODZQVWUHHVDQGVKUXEVRIODQGVFDSHGDUHDVEHWZHHQEXLOGLQJVDQGDW WKHQRUWKDQGZHVWVLGHVRIWKHRULJLQDOSRUWLRQRI$XGXERQ(OHPHQWDU\6FKRROPDNHLWDGLVWLQFWLYHH[DPSOHRI0LG &HQWXU\0RGHUQVFKRRODUFKLWHFWXUHDQGSODQQLQJ

$OWKRXJKDOWHUDWLRQVKDYHGLPLQLVKHGWKHKLVWRULFDOLQWHJULW\RIWKHVLJQLILFDQWSRUWLRQRIWKHVFKRROWRVRPHGHJUHHLW PDLQWDLQVVXIILFLHQWKLVWRULFDOLQWHJULW\WRFRQYH\LWVVLJQLILFDQFH8QOLNHPDQ\RWKHU6DQ'LHJRVFKRROVRIWKHHUDZKLFK KDYHUHFHLYHGQHZEXLOGLQJVRUPDMRUDGGLWLRQVWRKLVWRULFSHULRGEXLOGLQJVZLWKLQFRUHDUHDVRIWKHLURULJLQDOFRPSOH[HV $XGXERQ¶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¶VDXGLWRULXPFDIHWHULDYROXPHDWWKHQRUWK IURQW HOHYDWLRQUHSUHVHQWDVOLJKWDOWHUDWLRQRIWKHEXLOGLQJ¶VSODQ7KH\EOHQGLQZHOODQGKDYHQRWKHDYLO\LPSLQJHGXSRQRULJLQDO DUFKLWHFWXUDOIHDWXUHV7KHQRQRULJLQDOGLVDELOLW\UDPSDQGUDLOLQJOHDGLQJWRWKHVRXWKVLGHRI%XLOGLQJ$DORQJWKHZHVW HOHYDWLRQRI%XLOGLQJ%UHSUHVHQWVDVOLJKWH[WHULRUPRGLILFDWLRQ7KHQRQRULJLQDOOXQFKVKHOWHUVRXWKRI%XLOGLQJ$¶V DXGLWRULXPFDIHWHULDDQGNLWFKHQGLPLQLVKHVLQWHJULW\RIIHHOLQJDQGVHWWLQJLQWKDWDUHD)LQDOO\FRQVXOWDWLRQRIRULJLQDODV EXLOWSODQVLQGLFDWHVWKDWWKHORXYHUHGVKDGHDWWKHZHVWHOHYDWLRQRI%XLOGLQJ'PD\QRWEHRULJLQDOEXWLWZDVOLNHO\LQVWDOOHG VRRQDIWHU'HVSLWHWKHVHOLPLWHGDOWHUDWLRQVDQGJLYHQWKHDEXQGDQFHRIRULJLQDOZLQGRZVDQGGHVLJQHOHPHQWVWKH RULJLQDO$XGXERQ(OHPHQWDU\6FKRROFRPSOH[UHWDLQVDPXFKKLJKHUGHJUHHRIKLVWRULFDOLQWHJULW\WKDQPRVW6DQ'LHJRDUHD VFKRROVGDWLQJWRWKHV

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¶VRULJLQDOSORWSODQVXJJHVWVWKDWQLQHSRUWDEOH '35/ 5HTXLUHG,QIRUPDWLRQ 6WDWHRI&DOLIRUQLD±7KH5HVRXUFHV$JHQF\3ULPDU\BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB '(3$570(172)3$5.6$1'5(&5($7,21+5,BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB &217,18$7,216+((7 7ULQRPLDO BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 3DJH RI 5HVRXUFH1DPHRU $VVLJQHGE\UHFRUGHU $XGXERQ(OHPHQWDU\6FKRRO 5HFRUGHGE\ 7

FODVVURRPVZHUHSUHVHQWZKHQWKHSHUPDQHQWEXLOGLQJVZHUHFRPSOHWHG +DPLOO$ 7KHVHZHUHORFDWHGVRXWKRI %XLOGLQJ&DQGDUUDQJHGLQWKUHHHDVWZHVWDOLJQHGURZVZKHUHDVWRGD\WKHSRUWDEOHVLQWKDWDUHDDUHDUUDQJHGLQQRUWK VRXWKDOLJQHGURZV6LQFH6'86'DSSHDUVWRKDYHLQYHQWHGSRUWDEOHFODVVURRPEXLOGLQJVLWLVSRVVLEOHWKDWWKHVXUYLYLQJ ILUVWJHQHUDWLRQRISRUWDEOHVGHVLJQHGDQGEXLOWE\6'86'GXULQJ:RUOG:DU,,FRXOGKDYHKLVWRULFDOVLJQLILFDQFH+RZHYHU $XGXERQ(OHPHQWDU\6FKRRO¶VFXUUHQWSRUWDEOHEXLOGLQJVDSSHDUWRKDYHEHHQGHVLJQHGDIWHU:RUOG:DU,,)RUWKHVH UHDVRQVWKHSRUWDEOHEXLOGLQJVSUHVHQWWRGD\GRQRWDSSHDUWRFRQWULEXWHWRWKHVLJQLILFDQFHRIWKHSHUPDQHQWFRPSOH[RI EXLOGLQJV

7KHRULJLQDOFRPSOH[¶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¶V QRUWKHOHYDWLRQDOOH[LVWLQJZLQGRZRSHQLQJVDQGRULJLQDOVWHHORUZRRGIUDPHZLQGRZVDOOGRRURSHQLQJVDQGWKHJOD]HG HQWU\GRRUWRWKHPDLQRIILFHRI%XLOGLQJ$¶VDGPLQLVWUDWLRQZLQJ UHSODFHPHQWLQVWLWXWLRQDOJUDGHGRRUVHOVHZKHUHZRXOGQRW VLJQLILFDQWO\GLPLQLVKLQWHJULW\ H[LVWLQJFRQFUHWHZDONZD\VH[LVWLQJODQGVFDSHGDUHDVDQGWKHH[LVWLQJ³RSHQ´TXDOLW\RIWKH UHODWLRQVKLSVEHWZHHQODQGVFDSHGDUHDVDQGEXLOGLQJV PHDQLQJWKHH[LVWLQJDEVHQFHVRILQWHUYHQLQJIHQFHVZDOOVDQG RWKHUVWUXFWXUHVEHWZHHQODQGVFDSHGDUHDVDQGFRQWULEXWLQJEXLOGLQJV WKHRSHQEODFNWRSSOD\DUHDVRXWKDQGHDVWRIWKH/ VKDSHGRULJLQDOFRPSOH[DQGWKHH[LVWLQJHDV\DFFHVVWRWKHEODFNWRSSOD\DUHDVIURPFRQWULEXWLQJEXLOGLQJV ,Q6XPPDU\WKHRULJLQDOSRUWLRQRI$XGXERQ(OHPHQWDU\6FKRRODSSHDUVWRPHHW&ULWHULRQIRUOLVWLQJLQWKH&5+5D KLVWRULF0LG&HQWXU\0RGHUQVFKRROFRPSOH[&RQVHTXHQWO\WKHVFKRRO¶VRULJLQDOFRPSOH[DSSHDUVWREHDKLVWRULFDO UHVRXUFHIRUWKHSXUSRVHVRI&(4$ 3KRWRJUDSKV FRQW

Photograph 2.:HVWDQGQRUWKHOHYDWLRQVRI%XLOGLQJ$DGPLQLVWUDWLRQZLQJDWPDLQRIILFHZLWK SRUWLRQRIFDPSXVHQWU\DUFDGHORRNLQJHDVWVRXWKHDVW

'35/ 5HTXLUHG,QIRUPDWLRQ 6WDWHRI&DOLIRUQLD±7KH5HVRXUFHV$JHQF\3ULPDU\BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB '(3$570(172)3$5.6$1'5(&5($7,21+5,BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB &217,18$7,216+((7 7ULQRPLDO BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 3DJH RI 5HVRXUFH1DPHRU $VVLJQHGE\UHFRUGHU $XGXERQ(OHPHQWDU\6FKRRO 5HFRUGHGE\ 7

Photograph 3.%XLOGLQJ$DGPLQLVWUDWLRQZLQJPDLQRIILFHDWULJKWZLWKYLHZRISHUSHQGLFXODUO\ SURMHFWLQJZDOOHOHPHQWVFODVVURRPZLQGRZEDQNDWOHIWQHDUVPDOODGGLWLRQORRNLQJVRXWKZHVW

Photograph 4.%XLOGLQJ$FODVVURRPZLQGRZEDQNDWULJKWDXGLWRULXPFDIHWHULD YROXPHZLWKDGGLWLRQDWFHQWHUDQGFHQWHUOHIWORRNLQJVRXWKHDVW

Photograph 5.%XLOGLQJ$DGPLQLVWUDWLRQZLQJDWIDUULJKWDXGLWRULXPFDIHWHULDYROXPHDWFHQWHU NLWFKHQZLQJDWIDUOHIWQRWHGHFRUDWLYHVFRUHGH[WHULRUVXUIDFHXQGHUFDQWHGFDQRS\DW FHQWHUOHIWORRNLQJVRXWKZHVW

Photograph 6.%XLOGLQJ'DQGPDLQHQWU\DUFDGHH[WHQGLQJIURPZHVWHOHYDWLRQ RI%XLOGLQJ$WRQRUWKVLGHRI%XLOGLQJ'ORRNLQJVRXWKVRXWKHDVW '35/ 5HTXLUHG,QIRUPDWLRQ 6WDWHRI&DOLIRUQLD±7KH5HVRXUFHV$JHQF\3ULPDU\BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB '(3$570(172)3$5.6$1'5(&5($7,21+5,BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB &217,18$7,216+((7 7ULQRPLDO BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 3DJH RI 5HVRXUFH1DPHRU $VVLJQHGE\UHFRUGHU $XGXERQ(OHPHQWDU\6FKRRO 5HFRUGHGE\ 7

Photograph 7.:HVWDQGSDUWLDOVRXWKHOHYDWLRQVRI%XLOGLQJ$ORRNLQJQRUWKQRUWKHDVW

Photograph 8.:HVWHOHYDWLRQRI%XLOGLQJV%DQG&QRWHEUHH]HZD\RSHQLQJFHQWHUULJKW DQGFDQRSLHVFRQQHFWLQJWR%XLOGLQJ'ORRNLQJVRXWKHDVW

Photograph 9.(DVWHOHYDWLRQRI%XLOGLQJV%DQG&QRWHQRQRULJLQDOGLVDELOLW\ UDPSDQGUDLOLQJORRNLQJVRXWKZHVW

Photograph 10.6RXWKHOHYDWLRQRI%XLOGLQJ$QRWHQRQRULJLQDOOXQFKVKHOWHU DWULJKWORRNLQJQRUWK

Photograph 11.6RXWKHOHYDWLRQRI%XLOGLQJ$ORRNLQJQRUWKHDVW

Photograph 12.6RXWKDQGSDUWLDOZHVWHOHYDWLRQVRI.LQGHUJDUWHQ%XLOGLQJ ORRNLQJHDVWQRUWKHDVW

Photograph 13.(DVWDQGSDUWLDOVRXWKHOHYDWLRQVRI.LQGHUJDUWHQEXLOGLQJ ORRNLQJZHVW

Photograph 14.)URQWRI.LQGHUJDUWHQEXLOGLQJIURP6DQ9LFHQWH6WUHHWQRWHSHUSHQGLFXODUO\ SURMHFWLQJZDOOHOHPHQWVIODQNLQJZLQGRZDWULJKWORRNLQJVRXWK

Photograph 15.&ODVVURRP$GGLWLRQEXLOGLQJHDVWRI.LQGHUJDUWHQ%XLOGLQJ ORRNLQJQRUWKHDVW

Photograph 16.6RXWKHOHYDWLRQRI&ODVVURRP$GGLWLRQEXLOGLQJ ORRNLQJHDVWQRUWKHDVW

Photograph 17.1RUWKHOHYDWLRQRI&ODVVURRP$GGLWLRQEXLOGLQJORRNLQJHDVW

Photograph 18./LEUDU\$GGLWLRQVRXWKHDVWRI%XLOGLQJ&ORRNLQJVRXWKZHVW

Photograph 19.)URQWHOHYDWLRQRIW\SLFDOSRUWDEOHEXLOGLQJVORRNLQJVRXWK

Photograph 20.5HDUHOHYDWLRQVRIW\SLFDOSRUWDEOHEXLOGLQJVORRNLQJVRXWKVRXWKHDVW

Photograph 21.0RUHUHFHQWQRUWKHDVWSRUWDEOHEXLOGLQJHDVWRI/LEUDU\$GGLWLRQ ORRNLQJVRXWKVRXWKHDVW

%5HIHUHQFHV FRQW

%DNHU/LQGVD\$+LVWRU\RI6FKRRO'HVLJQDQGLWV,QGRRU(QYLURQPHQWDO6WDQGDUGVWR7RGD\-DQXDU\ 1DWLRQDO&OHDULQJ+RXVHIRU(GXFDWLRQDO)DFLOLWLHV1DWLRQDO,QVWLWXWHRI%XLOGLQJ6FLHQFHV$YDLODEOH KWWSZZZQFHIRUJSXEVJUHHQVFKRROVKLVWRU\SGI$FFHVVHG2FWREHU %URZQ-RDQQH³¶$LVIRU$WRP%LVIRU%RPE&LYLO'HIHQVHLQ$PHULFDQ3XEOLF(GXFDWLRQ´Journal of American History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iographies of Established Masters6DQ'LHJR+LVWRULF5HVRXUFHV%RDUG&LW\RI6DQ'LHJR$YDLODEOH KWWSZZZVDQGLHJRJRYSODQQLQJSURJUDPVKLVWRULFDOSGIELRJUDSKLHVSGI!$FFHVVHG-XO\ +DPLOO6DPXHO: 6DP:+DPLOO$UFKLWHFW $3ORW3ODQ-RKQ-DPHV$XGXERQ6KHHWRI)HEUXDU\2QILOHDW WKH$UFKLWHFWXUDO$UFKLYHVRIWKH6'86'0DLQWHQDQFHDQG2SHUDWLRQV&HQWHU6DQ'LHJR&DOLIRUQLD '35/ 5HTXLUHG,QIRUPDWLRQ 6WDWHRI&DOLIRUQLD±7KH5HVRXUFHV$JHQF\3ULPDU\BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB '(3$570(172)3$5.6$1'5(&5($7,21+5,BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB &217,18$7,216+((7 7ULQRPLDO BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 3DJH RI 5HVRXUFH1DPHRU $VVLJQHGE\UHFRUGHU $XGXERQ(OHPHQWDU\6FKRRO 5HFRUGHGE\ 7

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB%)ORRU3ODQ8QLW³(´>.LQGHUJDUWHQ@-RKQ-DPHV$XGXERQ6KHHWRI)HEUXDU\2Q ILOHDWWKH$UFKLWHFWXUDO$UFKLYHVRIWKH6'86'0DLQWHQDQFHDQG2SHUDWLRQV&HQWHU6DQ'LHJR&DOLIRUQLD BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB&([WHULRU(OHYDWLRVQ8QLW³$´-RKQ-DPHV$XGXERQ6KHHWRI)HEUXDU\2QILOHDW WKH$UFKLWHFWXUDO$UFKLYHVRIWKH6'86'0DLQWHQDQFHDQG2SHUDWLRQV&HQWHU6DQ'LHJR&DOLIRUQLD BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB'([WHULRU(OHYDWLRQV8QLWV³%´³&´³'´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²$UFKLWHFWV²:XOOI )LILHOG,QWHUQHW ZHESDJHDYDLODEOH KWWSZZZPRGHUQVDQGLHJRFRP!$FFHVVHG$XJXVW 2JDWD$P\)³%XLOGLQJIRU/HDUQLQJLQ3RVWZDU$PHULFDQ(OHPHQWDU\6FKRROV´Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 'HFHPEHU 3LWPDQ7RGG1R'DWH/OR\G3LHWUDQWRQLR5XRFFR´0RGHUQ6DQ'LHJR5HDO(VWDWH:HEVLWH²$UFKLWHFWV² /OR\G3LHWUDQWRQLR5XRFFR$YDLODEOHKWWSZZZPRGHUQVDQGLHJRFRP/OR\G5XRFFRKWPO$FFHVVHG$XJXVW San Diego Tribune³6DQ'LHJR6FKRROV/DQGVFDSLQJ%HJLQVRQ:RPDQ¶V'UDIWLQJ%RDUG´1HZV&OLSIURP%LR )ROGHU0LO0RH6DQ'LHJR+LVWRU\&HQWHU6DQ'LHJR&DOLIRUQLD BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB³&O\GH+XIEDXHUGHVLJQHGPDQ\6DQ'LHJRDUHDVFKRROV´'HFHPEHU1HZV&OLSIURP %LR)ROGHU+RV+XP6DQ'LHJR+LVWRU\&HQWHU6DQ'LHJR&DOLIRUQLD San Diego Union³7ZHOYH&ODVVURRPV&RPSOHWHGDW$XGXERQ6FKRRO´-DQXDU\$ BBBBBBBBBBBBBB³&RQVWUXFWLRQ3ODQV2.GE\(GXFDWRUV²0LOOLRQ'ROODUVLQ6FKRRO%RQGV2UGHUHG6ROG´ 'HFHPEHU$ 6DQ'LHJR8QLILHG6FKRRO'LVWULFW 6'86' $XGXERQ(OHPHQWDU\6FKRRO6PDOO6FDOH3ORW3ODQ)HEUXDU\ 2QILOHDWWKH$UFKLWHFWXUDO$UFKLYHVRIWKH6'86'0DLQWHQDQFHDQG2SHUDWLRQV&HQWHU6DQ'LHJR&DOLIRUQLD 6FDUU/HZ³6FKRROPHQ3UDLVH3RUWDEOHV´San Diego Tribune0DUFK1HZV&OLSIURP%R[²6FKRROV² $)6DQ'LHJR+LVWRU\&HQWHU6DQ'LHJR&DOLIRUQLD

'35/ 5HTXLUHG,QIRUPDWLRQ

[This page intentionally left blank.]